Terrill Johnson v. Q.E.D. Environmental Systems Inc.
Filing
77
ORDER GRANTING QED'S MOTION TO DENY CLASS CERTIFICATION; GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR CONDITIONAL FLSA CERTIFICATION; DENYING QED'S MOTION FOR RULE 11 SANCTIONS; AND SETTING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE by Judge William H. Orrick denying 50 Motion for Sanctions; granting 53 Motion to Deny Certification of Class; granting in part 56 Motion for Conditional FLSA Certify Class. Case Management Statement due by 5/16/2017. Case Management Conference set for 5/23/2017 02:00 PM in Courtroom 2, 17th Floor, San Francisco. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/3/2017)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
TERRILL JOHNSON,
Plaintiff,
8
9
Case No. 16-cv-01454-WHO
v.
Q.E.D. ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS
INC.,
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
Defendant.
12
ORDER GRANTING QED’S MOTION
TO DENY CLASS CERTIFICATION;
GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION FOR CONDITIONAL FLSA
CERTIFICATION; DENYING QED’S
MOTION FOR RULE 11 SANCTIONS;
AND SETTING CASE MANAGEMENT
CONFERENCE
Dkts. No. 50, 53, 56
13
INTRODUCTION
14
15
In this labor case, plaintiff Terrill Johnson brings a putative class action and Fair Labor
16
Standards Act (“FLSA”) collective action on behalf of himself and all similarly-situated non-
17
exempt employees and former employees of Q.E.D Environmental Systems Inc. (“QED”) because
18
QED used an “automatic deduct” policy and failed to provide all meal periods, full wages or
19
accurate wage statements as required by law. Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”) ¶1 (Dkt. No.
20
29). QED now moves to deny class certification because QED did not have a common nationwide
21
auto deduct policy: Johnson’s testimony establishes that he was atypical of the class; and
22
Johnson’s testimony and evidence establish that there are only six to seven individuals in the class.
23
Decertify Mot. at 1 (Dkt. No. 53). QED is correct; Johnson cannot meet the commonality,
24
typicality, numerosity, and adequacy requirements of Rule 23 and the motion to deny class
25
certification is GRANTED.
26
QED also moves for sanctions against Johnson’s lawyers, arguing that they failed to
27
conduct a reasonable investigation which would have revealed that Johnson was atypical of the
28
class; that QED’s policies comply with California law; and that the proposed class could not meet
1
the numerosity requirements for class certification. Sanctions Mot. at 1-3 (Dkt. No. 50). While I
2
agree with much of QED’s argument, in light of its failure to provide critical discovery on
3
numerosity in a timely fashion, I DENY the motion for sanctions.
4
Johnson also moves for conditional certification of his FLSA meal break claim.
5
Certification Mot. at 1 (Dkt. No. 56). Because he has met the very low bar for conditional
6
certification, his motion for conditional FLSA certification is GRANTED in part.
7
8
9
BACKGROUND
Johnson filed this putative class action on August 26, 2017, in California Superior Court.
(Dkt. No. 2-1). QED removed the case to federal court on March 24, 2016, after Johnson added a
FLSA claim to his Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”). (Dkt. No. 1); (Dkt. No. 2-2). QED
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
moved to dismiss the SAC, which I granted because “Johnson ha[d] wholly failed to meet the
12
minimum pleading requirements” and his allegations relating to an “unidentified ‘policy or
13
practice’ ” of not providing uninterrupted meal breaks were insufficient. Dkt. No. 27 at 3.
14
Johnson then filed his TAC, this time alleging that QED supervisors instructed and
15
encouraged employees to skip or take shortened meal breaks and attaching excerpts from a July
16
2012 Employment Manual that outlines a meal break policy that is facially non-compliant with
17
California law. TAC at 6; TAC, Ex. A (Dkt. No. 29-1). QED moved to dismiss, but I denied the
18
motion because Johnson’s allegations that QED pressured employees to skip meal breaks or take
19
shorter meal breaks than required by law, in conjunction with the facially deficient policy outlined
20
by the Employment Manual, was sufficient to meet the pleading standard. Dkt. No. 42 at 5
21
(explaining that because the deficient meal break policy placed “the responsibility [on] QED
22
supervisors to advise and schedule work compliant meal and rest breaks, the allegations that QED
23
instructed, encouraged, and directed its employees to work in a manner contrary to the Labor Code
24
at least plausibly suggests that the QED did not in fact have a compliant meal break policy”).
25
On September 30, 2016, QED produced to plaintiffs a California addendum to the
26
employee manual, outlining a facially compliant meal break policy. Segal Decl. in Support of
27
Oppo. to Sanctions Mot. Ex. 2 (Dkt. No. 62-3). Counsel for Johnson declares that this addendum
28
was not included with the copy of the Employment Manual that Johnson provided to them in
2
1
October of 2014. Shim Decl. ¶7.
Once the TAC was filed, QED began efforts to arrange a deposition of named plaintiff
3
Terrill Johnson. Sanctions Mot. at 3. After Johnson’s counsel refused 11 different deposition
4
dates, Johnson was finally deposed on December 12, 2016. Id. At his deposition, Johnson
5
testified that he had no knowledge about the meal break or time keeping practices of QED
6
facilities outside the San Leandro facility and had never spoken to any employees at other
7
facilities. Connors Decl. Ex. A (“Johnson Depo”) at 28:9-12, 23-24; 29:3-5; 77:8-19; 77:3-19;
8
83:7-22 (Dkt. No. 53-2). He also testified that, to his knowledge, there were only six or seven
9
other employees, all production line workers, at the San Leandro facility that were denied meal
10
periods. Id. 52:1-8, 13-20. He specifically stated that he had no knowledge whether other non-
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
2
exempt employees were denied meal periods, id. 97:23-98:8, and that the supervisors at the San
12
Leandro facility would not have been denied lunch breaks or subject to the same meal break
13
issues. Id. 98:23-99:17. He further testified that he believed he was denied meal periods and
14
singled out because his supervisor didn’t like him. Id. 58:13-18; 72:20-73-20; 74:22-25; 76:3-6.
Johnson’s counsel also belatedly served a 30(b)(6) notice on QED at plaintiff Johnson’s
15
16
deposition on December 12, 2016. Dkt. No. 60 at 3. QED refused to produce a 30(b)(6) deponent
17
because the request was overbroad. Id. The parties brought their discovery dispute to me. I
18
ordered that they proceed with a narrowed notice, and depositions for two 30(b)(6) witnesses
19
finally occurred on March 7, 2017.
On January 6, 2017, QED served on counsel for Johnson its motion for sanctions,
20
21
explaining that if Johnson did not voluntarily dismiss the TAC within 21 days it would seek
22
sanctions from the court. Dkt. No. 59-1. Johnson’s counsel responded to this letter on January 28,
23
2017 offering to “add a clarification regarding QED’s employment manual” but declining to
24
dismiss the TAC. Conners Decl., Ex. C (Dkt. No. 68). Johnson did not take any action to amend
25
the TAC and QED subsequently filed its motion for sanctions. Dkt. No 50.
LEGAL STANDARD
26
27
28
I.
FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 23
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 governs class actions. “Before certifying a class, the
3
1
trial court must conduct a rigorous analysis to determine whether the party seeking certification
2
has met the prerequisites of Rule 23.” Mazza v. Am. Honda Motor Co., Inc., 666 F.3d 581, 588
3
(9th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks omitted). The burden is on the party seeking
4
certification to show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the prerequisites have been met.
5
See Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541, 2551 (2011); Conn. Ret. Plans & Trust
6
Funds v. Amgen Inc., 660 F.3d 1170, 1175 (9th Cir. 2011).
Certification under Rule 23 is a two-step process. The party seeking certification must first
7
8
satisfy the four threshold requirements of Rule 23(a), numerosity, commonality, typicality, and
9
adequacy. Specifically, Rule 23(a) requires a showing that:
(1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable;
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
(2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class;
12
(3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses
of the class; and
13
(4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.
14
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a).
15
The party seeking certification must then establish that one of the three grounds for
16
certification under Rule 23(b) applies. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b).
17
18
19
20
II.
FLSA CERTIFICATION
An employee may bring a collective action under the FLSA on behalf of other “similarly
situated” employees. 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). Most courts follow a two-step approach to determine
whether employees in a proposed collective are “similarly situated” such that FLSA certification is
21
appropriate. Harris v. Vector Mktg. Corp., 716 F. Supp. 2d 835, 837 (N.D. Cal. 2010); see also
22
Daniels v. Aeropostale West, Inc., No. 12-cv-05755-WHA, 2013 WL 1758891, at *5 (N.D. Cal.
23
Apr. 24, 2013). During the first step, the court must determine whether the proposed collective
24
25
26
27
should be informed of the action and given “notice.” Harris, 716 F. Supp. 2d at 837. The
“notice” stage determination of whether the putative collective members will be similarly situated
is made under a “fairly lenient standard” which typically results in conditional certification.
Daniels, 2013 WL 1758891 at *6. At the notice stage it is the plaintiffs’ burden to make
28
4
1
substantial allegations that the putative collective members were subject to an illegal policy, plan,
2
or decision, by showing that there is some factual basis beyond the “mere averments” in the
3
complaint. Id.
4
Given the lenient standard at the notice stage, courts have held that plaintiffs bear a “very
5
light burden” in substantiating the allegations. Prentice v. Fund for Pub. Interest Research, Inc.,
6
No. 06-cv-7776-SC, 2007 WL 2729187, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 18, 2007) (“Given that a motion
7
for conditional certification usually comes before much, if any, discovery, and is made in
8
anticipation of a later more searching review, a movant bears a very light burden in substantiating
9
its allegations at this stage.”).
“[T]he party opposing the certification may move to decertify the class once discovery is
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
complete.” Benedict v. Hewlett-Packard Co., No. 13-cv-0019-LHK, 2014 WL587135, at *5 (N.D.
12
Cal. Feb. 13, 2014). During this second stage the court makes factual determinations as to the
13
“propriety and scope of the class, and must consider three factors: (1) the disparate factual and
14
employment setting of the individual plaintiffs; (2) the various defenses available to the
15
defendants with respect to the individuals plaintiffs; and (3) fairness and procedural
16
considerations.” Richie v. Blue Shield of California, No. 13-cv-2693-EMC, 2014 WL 6982943, at
17
*7 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 9, 2014). During this stage the “court engages in a more stringent inquiry into
18
the propriety and scope of the collective action” because “discovery is complete and the case is
19
ready to be tried.” Labrie v. UPS Supply Chain Solutions, Inc., No. 08-cv-3182 PJH, 2009 WL
20
723559, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 18, 2009). The second step of FLSA certification occurs “after the
21
conditional class has received notice and discovery has been completed. Richie, 2014 WL
22
6982943 at *7. “Where substantial discovery has been completed, some courts have skipped the
23
first-step analysis and proceeded directly to the second step.” Smith v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., No.
24
05-cv-5274, 2007 WL 2385131, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 15, 2007).
25
III.
26
27
28
RULE 11
Rule 11 provides, in relevant part:
(b) Representations to the Court. By presenting to the court a
pleading, written motion, or other paper – whether by signing, filing,
submitting, or later advocating it – an attorney or unrepresented
5
party certifies that to the best of the person’s knowledge,
information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the
circumstances:
1
2
(1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to
harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of
litigation;
3
4
(2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted
by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending,
modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law;
[and]
5
6
7
8
(3) the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if
specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a
reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery . . . .
9
(c) Sanctions.
10
(1) In General. If, after notice and a reasonable opportunity to
respond, the court determines that Rule 11(b) has been violated, the
court may impose an appropriate sanction on any attorney, law firm,
or party that violated the rule or is responsible for the violation.
Absent exceptional circumstances, a law firm must be held jointly
responsible for a violation committed by its partner, associate, or
employee.
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
14
Fed. R. Civ. P. 11.
“Rule 11 authorizes a court to impose a sanction on any attorney, law firm, or party that
15
16
brings a claim for an improper purpose or without support in law or evidence.” Sneller v. City of
17
Bainbridge Island, 606 F.3d 636 (9th Cir. 2010). Where “the complaint is the primary focus of
18
Rule 11 proceedings, a district court must conduct a two-prong inquiry to determine (1) whether
19
the complaint is legally or factually ‘baseless’ from an objective perspective, and (2) if the
20
attorney has conducted ‘a reasonable and competent inquiry’ before signing and filing it.”
21
Christian v. Mattel, Inc., 286 F.3d 1118, 1127 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Buster v. Greisen, 104 F.3d
22
1186, 1190 (9th Cir. 1997). “An attorney may not be sanctioned for a complaint that is not well-
23
founded, so long as she conducted a reasonable inquiry.” In re Keegan Mgm’t Co., Securities
24
Litig., 78 F.3d 431, 434 (9th Cir. 1996).
DISCUSSION
25
26
I.
MOTION TO DENY CLASS CERTIFICATION UNDER RULE 23
27
QED moves to deny class certification on all of Johnson’s Rule 23 claims, arguing that he
28
cannot establish Rule 23(a)’s prerequisites of (1) numerosity; (2); commonality (3) typicality; and
6
1
(4) adequacy. Decertification Mot. at 10-14. It is obvious that Johnson cannot establish
2
numerosity, so I need not address the reasons to deny certification asserted by QED.
3
A.
4
Rule 23(a)(1) requires that a class be “so numerous that joinder of all members is
5
impracticable.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(1). Formally, there is no “specific number of class members
6
required for numerosity.” In re Rubber Antitrust Litigation, 232 F.R.D. 346, 350 (N.D. Cal.
7
2005). However, “courts generally find that the numerosity factor is satisfied if the class
8
comprises 40 or more members, and will find that it has not been satisfied when the class
9
comprises 21 or fewer.” In re Facebook, Inc., PPC Advertising Litig., 282 F.R.D. 446, 452 (N.D.
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
Numerosity
Cal. 2012).
QED argues that plaintiffs cannot reach this 21 person threshold. They note that at his
12
deposition, named plaintiff Johnson testified that he only had knowledge relevant to QED’s San
13
Leandro facility, which has just 22 employees. Johnson Depo. 77:8-19 (Dkt. No. 51-1). With
14
regard to that facility, Johnson testified that QED automatically deducted 30 minutes of time from
15
his and his coworkers’ paychecks for lunch breaks regardless of whether they took a full 30
16
minute break or any break at all, id. 80:24-81:8, and that his supervisor encouraged him and his
17
coworkers to miss meal breaks or take shortened breaks to deal with rush orders id. 44:16-45:5.
18
He also testified that, as far as he knew, only six or seven other individuals were denied meal
19
breaks in the same way he was. Id. 52:1-53:20; 56:25-57:7; 57:18-21. Johnson admitted that at
20
least some of the employees at San Leandro, such as the supervisors, would not have been
21
subjected to the same policy and so would not have missed meal breaks. Id. 98:23-99:17.
22
This testimony is partially corroborated by the deposition testimony of David Simpson, a
23
supervisor at the San Leandro facility who confirmed that for five months the San Leandro facility
24
employed an auto-deduct policy. Simpson Depo. 52:16-53:9. Simpson also testified that this
25
policy only impacted 11 employees and did not apply to the hourly office employees who input
26
their time by hand, instead of by using a punch clock. Id. 12:23-13:4. QED asserts that this
27
evidence demonstrates that there are only a handful of employees similarly-situated to Johnson
28
and that this handful is insufficient to meet the numerosity requirement of Rule 23.
7
1
Plaintiffs make several unconvincing arguments in defense of their class action claims.
2
First, they argue that Johnson did not testify that only seven people missed meal breaks, and
3
instead testified that “everybody at once – at any given day, would get pulled in to do a rush
4
order” and would miss lunch breaks as a result. Decertification Oppo. at 6 (quoting Johnson
5
Depo. 56:13-24). This argument is highly misleading as Johnson subsequently clarified that when
6
he said “everybody” he only meant the six or seven people who worked on the production line
7
with him. Johnson Depo. 56:25-57:12. This makes sense as only the production line workers
8
would be impacted by a “rush order.”
9
Next, plaintiffs argue that QED has artificially limited the potential class to the San
Leandro facility and that this is inappropriate because plaintiffs have asserted a nationwide class
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
under the FLSA, and QED has 80 employees nationally. See Lebrun Depo. 9:7-23. This
12
argument fails because plaintiffs’ FLSA claim is not relevant to this motion, which applies only to
13
plaintiffs’ Rule 23 class claims. Plaintiffs’ FLSA claim, brought under FLSA, is not subject to
14
Rule 23’s numerosity requirement, and so has no bearing on this issue.
15
Plaintiffs next assert that “to the extent some of the[ir] subclasses are limited to
16
California,” San Leandro is not the only California facility QED has had: they have also had
17
facilities in Oakland and Colton, California, and currently have a facility in San Bernardino. It is
18
important to note that all of plaintiffs’ classes, excluding their FLSA collective, are limited to
19
California. Although plaintiffs have defined many of their subclasses as applying to a national
20
class of non-exempt employees, their claims are asserted solely under California labor law. TAC
21
at 1. Plaintiffs’ California state law claims do not apply to QED’s employees located outside of
22
California. See Gintz v. Jack In The Box, Inc., No. C 06-02857 CW, 2006 WL 3422222, at *6
23
(N.D. Cal. Nov. 28, 2006).
24
Plaintiffs’ argument that QED has, or has had, three other facilities in California is
25
borderline frivolous. Johnson himself explained that the San Leandro facility used to be located in
26
Oakland and then it moved to San Leandro – in terms of employees, the Oakland and San Leandro
27
facilities are the same. Johnson Depo. 77:4-7. Similarly, approximately a year ago QED acquired
28
a small company in Southern California with a facility in Colton that later relocated to San
8
1
Bernardino – in terms of employees, the Colton and San Bernardino facilities are the same.
2
Lebrun Depo. 10:9-11:9. There are only four employees that work in San Bernardino, Lebrun
3
Depo 11:10-17, none of them are production line workers, Simpson Depo. 20:6-8; 68:9-14, and
4
they have never been subjected to an auto-deduct policy, id. 68:22-69:14.
5
The evidence presented by the parties demonstrates that QED only had a maximum of 25
6
hourly employees in California during the relevant period. Simpson Affidavit (Dkt. No. 71-1);
7
Simpson Depo. 20:6-8; 68:9-14. This number could arguably meet the numerosity requirement,
8
but as the evidence also shows, only a small number of these hourly employees were subjected to
9
the same meal break policy and pressures as plaintiff Johnson. When considering only those
plaintiffs actually similarly situated to Johnson, the California employees to which the auto-deduct
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
policy applied, the proposed class has a maximum of 11 employees. This is insufficient to meet
12
the numerosity requirement of Rule 23 and is fatal to class certification.
13
B.
14
Plaintiffs assert that QED’s decertification motion is procedurally improper because under
Timing of Decertification Motion
15
the court’s schedule, plaintiffs have until May 3, 2017 to submit a motion for class certification.
16
Decert. Oppo. at 3. They acknowledge that in Vinole v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 571 F.3d
17
935, 937 (9th Cir. 2009), the Ninth Circuit upheld a district court’s decision to consider a motion
18
to deny class certification filed before plaintiffs’ certification motion and before the close of
19
discovery, but argue that the case here is distinguishable from Vinole because in that case the
20
district court had not set a deadline for class certification motions. Decert. Oppo. at 3. This
21
distinction is not convincing.
22
In Vinole the Ninth Circuit made clear that a defendant may bring a preemptive motion to
23
deny class certification. Vinole, 571 F.3d at 939, 942 (“Rule 23 does not preclude a defendant
24
from bringing a ‘preemptive’ motion to deny certification. . . . [N]o rule or decisional authority
25
prohibited [the defendant] from filing its motion to deny certification before Plaintiffs filed their
26
motion to certify, and Plaintiffs had ample time to prepare and present their certification
27
argument.”). Further, the court rejected the idea that it is procedurally improper for a court to
28
consider a decertification motion before its established pretrial scheduling deadlines. Id. at 942.
9
1
(“Plaintiffs have not offered any authority, and we have found none, for the proposition that a
2
district court either abuses its discretion or errs as a matter of law by considering the issue of class
3
certification before expiration of a pretrial motion deadline.”). Plaintiffs’ claim that QED’s
4
motion to deny certification is procedurally improper is not supported by any legal authority.
5
C.
6
Fact discovery is closed and the evidence is clear that plaintiffs cannot meet the numerosity
Motion to Deny Certification Analysis
requirement for Rule 23 because there are only a handful of California employees who were
8
subjected to the auto-deduct policy or encouraged to miss meal breaks. There is no legal authority
9
to support plaintiffs’ claim that QED’s motion to deny class certification is procedurally improper.
10
Because plaintiffs cannot satisfy the numerosity requirement for Rule 23, plaintiffs’ claims are not
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
7
suitable for class treatment. QED’s motion to deny class certification is GRANTED.
12
II.
13
MOTION FOR CONDITIONAL FLSA CERTIFICATION
Plaintiffs move for conditional certification of their nationwide FLSA claim. Certification
14
Mot. at 1. They assert that QED had a nationwide policy of automatically deducting 30 minutes
15
from employee paychecks for meal breaks, regardless of whether the employee actually took a full
16
meal break and that employees were regularly encouraged to miss meal breaks, in violation of the
17
FLSA. Id. They seek to conditionally certify a collective of all QED employees subjected to an
18
auto-deduct policy during the relevant period. To satisfy his burden at the conditional certification
19
stage, a plaintiff must provide “little more than substantial allegations, supported by declarations
20
or discovery, that ‘putative class members were together the victims of a single decision, policy, or
21
plan.” Velasquez v. HSBC Finance Corp., 266 F.R.D. 424, 427 (N.D. Cal. 2010).
22
Plaintiffs point to a smattering of evidence to support their nationwide FLSA allegations.
23
First, they note that plaintiff Johnson testified that QED automatically deducted 30 minutes from
24
his and his coworkers paychecks, Johnson Depo. 80:20-81:9, and that his and his coworkers’
25
lunch breaks were often interrupted for rush orders. Id. 46:5-17; 47:2-23; 56:13-21. This
26
testimony is limited to the San Leandro facility as Johnson testified that he had no knowledge of
27
the meal break policies at other facilities. Id. 77:8-19. Johnson’s allegations of an auto-deduct
28
policy are supported by time cards which show that for a five month period, from March 31, 2014
10
1
to August 22, 2014, the San Leandro facility where Johnson worked employed an auto-deduct
2
policy. Segal Decl. Ex. 4 QED000783-789. Plaintiffs assert that Johnson’s testimony, and the
3
documentary evidence of San Leandro’s auto-deduct policy, is sufficient to meet the low burden
4
for conditional FLSA certification of a nationwide class.
QED opposes the motion for conditional certification, asserting that plaintiffs cannot show
6
that there was a nationwide auto-deduct policy. Certification Oppo. at 9. In support, they point to
7
evidence that all of QED’s facilities used different timekeeping policies: San Leandro briefly had
8
an auto-deduct policy that applied to product line workers but not hourly office employees,
9
Simpson Depo. 52:16-53:9; the Dexter Michigan facility has had an auto-deduct policy since 2014
10
that applies to approximately 18 employees, but supervisors adjust employee timecards manually
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
5
when they miss a meal break or take a shortened break, LeBrun Depo. 27:14-18; 41:18-42:8; and
12
the San Bernardino facility does not, and has never had, an auto-deduct policy, Simpson Depo.
13
68:22-69:14.
14
While there is evidence that both the San Leandro and Michigan facilities have had auto-
15
deduct policies, an auto-deduct policy, on its own, is not sufficient to sustain an FLSA claim.
16
Harp v. Starline Tours of Hollywood, Inc., No. 14-cv-07704, 2015 WL 4589736, at *6 (C.D. Cal.
17
July 27, 2015) (“standing alone, automatic meal deduction policies are not per se illegal under the
18
FLSA.”). To make out an FLSA claim based on an auto-deduct policy, plaintiffs must allege a
19
“failure to compensate an employee who worked with the employer’s knowledge through an
20
unpaid meal break.” Wolman v. Catholic Health Sys. of Long Island, Inc., 853 F. Supp. 2d 290,
21
301 (E.D.N.Y. 2012). In the context of an auto-deduct policy, this means the plaintiff must
22
demonstrate “that enforcement of the automatic deduction policy created a policy-to-violate-the
23
policy.” Camesi v. Univ. of Pittsburgh Med. Ctr., No. 09-cv-85J, 2011 WL 6372873, at *4 (W.D.
24
Pa. Dec. 20, 2011). In Harp, the court found plaintiffs had sustained this burden for a collective of
25
drivers by presenting declarations from employee-drivers who explained that they were often
26
encouraged by supervisors to miss lunch breaks, but were nevertheless deducted 30 minutes of pay
27
due to an auto-deduction policy. Harp, 2015 WL 4589736, at *5. The court also found that
28
plaintiffs had failed to show that all other hourly employees were similarly situated because the
11
1
employee-drivers’ declarations established that it was the specific pressures of their jobs that
2
resulted in them missing meal breaks. Id.
3
In this case, while there is evidence that 11 employees at San Leandro and 18 employees in
4
Michigan were subjected to an auto-deduct policy, plaintiffs must point to something more to
5
allege a viable FLSA violation. Just like the drivers in Harp, Johnson’s testimony that his
6
supervisor pressured him and his coworkers to miss meal breaks to deal with rush projects satisfies
7
this requirement. However, Johnson was clear that his testimony only applied to the 6-7
8
production line employees he worked with and that he couldn’t speak to whether any other
9
employees missed meal breaks. Johnson’s testimony reveals that it was the specific pressures of
the production line job in San Leandro that caused employees to miss breaks and there is no
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
evidence that other employees at the San Leandro facility or those in Michigan face similar
12
pressures. Kevin Lebrun, who testified regarding the timekeeping policies at QED’s Michigan
13
facility, explained that the only employee he could remember who had missed a meal break in
14
Michigan had done so because “he was working on a project putting parts together. He said he
15
was almost complete with it as he was approaching the 12:00 hour, so rather than stop, go to
16
lunch, he chose to work through his lunch and complete it.” Lebrun Depo. 46:2-6 (Dkt. No. 71-1).
17
Lebrun further testified that he adjusted that employee’s time so that he was paid for working
18
through the lunch. Id. 45:5-19. Plaintiffs have not presented employee declarations or any other
19
evidence that any employees at the Dexter facility missed meal breaks.
20
Johnson has testified that he and six or seven of his coworkers were regularly encouraged
21
to miss meal breaks to accommodate rush jobs. Plaintiffs have also presented evidence that from
22
March 31, 2014 – August 22, 2014 the San Leandro facility had an auto-deduct policy. This
23
evidence, together, is sufficient for plaintiffs to meet their burden at the conditional certification
24
stage with regard to a narrow group. See Harp, 2015 WL 4589736, at *5.
25
QED argues that I should still deny FLSA certification for this small group because
26
Johnson testified that he was singled out for disparate treatment by his supervisor and so is not
27
similarly situated to his coworkers. Id. at 12. Although Johnson testified that he missed more
28
meal breaks than his coworkers, this goes to the extent of his damages and does not undermine his
12
1
testimony that he and his coworkers were often required to work on rush jobs together and
2
consequently missed meal breaks. This potential difference between Johnson and his coworkers
3
regarding the extent of their alleged damages does not defeat collective certification.
Plaintiffs’ motion for conditional FLSA certification is GRANTED with regard to
4
5
production line workers at the San Leandro facility for the time period of March 31, 2014 –
6
August 22, 2014. It is DENIED with regard to all other QED employees and time periods.
7
III.
8
MOTION FOR SANCTIONS
QED moves for Rule 11 sanctions against plaintiffs’ counsel, alleging that plaintiffs’ case
is legally and factually baseless and that plaintiffs’ counsel knew or should have known this at the
10
time they filed the complaint. Sanctions Mot. at 1 (Dkt. No. 50). QED seeks an award of QED’s
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
9
costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees, and a dismissal of this case with prejudice. Id. QED points
12
to a number of weaknesses in plaintiffs’ case, an incomplete and misleading Employee Manual
13
attached to the TAC, and plaintiffs’ counsel’s behavior as evidence that Rule 11 sanctions are
14
appropriate. Despite flaws in plaintiffs’ case and in plaintiffs’ counsels’ investigation and work in
15
this case, which fell well below any reasonable professional standard, I conclude there is
16
insufficient evidence of bad-faith conduct on the part of plaintiffs’ counsel to justify the extreme
17
remedy of sanctions, particularly because QED delayed production of the critical testimony that
18
verified the lack of numerosity.
19
A.
20
QED makes a number of arguments regarding the misleading Employee Manual attached
The Employee Manual
21
to the TAC. It asserts that plaintiffs’ attorneys intentionally omitted the California Addendum
22
from the TAC and intentionally made false allegations that QED had facially non-compliant meal
23
break policies. Alternatively, it argues that plaintiffs’ counsel failed to conduct an adequate
24
investigation to discover these issues. In support of these arguments it notes that plaintiff Johnson
25
testified that he had seen the California Addendum, that he had received a copy, and that he
26
believed that QED’s policies met California’s labor requirements.
27
Extrapolating from this testimony, QED speculates that plaintiffs’ counsel received a copy
28
of the California Addendum from Johnson and knew that QED had a facially compliant California
13
1
policy but chose not to attach the Addendum to the TAC and to instead make false allegations
2
about QED’s policies based on the rest of the Employee Manual. Sanctions Mot. at 4.
3
Alternatively, it argues that Johnson improperly failed to produce the California Addendum to his
4
counsel. In response to these assertions, plaintiffs’ counsel has presented declaration testimony
5
explaining that they did not receive the California Addendum from Johnson, who only sent
6
counsel an electronic copy of the general Employee Manual, which did not include the California
7
Addendum. Shim Decl. ¶7. Although Johnson testified that he had received a California
8
Addendum, he did not affirmatively testify that he had retained this document when he left QED.
9
Instead, he testified that he had left many of his hard copy manuals in his old desk at QED’s
facility when he left. Johnson Depo. 157:14-20. He also testified that he had produced all
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
relevant documents in his possession to his counsel, with the exception of some notes he had taken
12
regarding his supervisors’ conduct that had accidentally been shredded.
13
Plaintiffs’ counsel’s explanations regarding the Employee Manual are consistent with a
14
good-faith mistake and a reasonable investigation. It appears that counsel did not receive the
15
California Addendum and that Johnson did not have a copy of the Addendum to produce to them.
16
QED argues that even if plaintiffs’ counsel did not receive a copy of the California
17
Addendum, because Johnson was aware of its existence and testified that he believed QED’s
18
policies met all legal requirements, they nevertheless knew, or should have known, that QED’s
19
policies complied with California law. Sanctions Mot. at 4. This argument is not persuasive.
20
While Johnson was able to recognize the California Addendum when it was placed in front of him,
21
this does not mean he would have been able to describe the document in detail to his counsel,
22
outline its policies, or even recall that it existed. It is perfectly reasonable to assume that an
23
employee, who no longer has a copy of his complete company Employee Handbook, would not
24
remember its contents in detail or realize that it is missing a California Addendum. Further, while
25
Johnson testified that he was unaware of any QED policies that violated California law, Johnson is
26
a lay plaintiff, with no special knowledge of labor law. It would be unreasonable for plaintiffs’
27
counsel to rely on the lay opinion of their client instead of the documentary evidence that he has
28
produced to them.
14
1
Johnson’s testimony that he had seen the California Addendum and believed QED had
2
compliant policies does not demonstrate that his counsel should have known that their allegations
3
regarding QED’s meal break policies were incorrect.
4
B.
5
QED asserts that plaintiffs’ wage statement claims were baseless because Johnson was
Plaintiff was unaware of any wage statement violations
unable to identify any inaccurate wage statements and was unaware of ever receiving any.
7
Sanctions Mot. at 6. That Johnson was not aware of receiving any inaccurate wage statements is
8
irrelevant to the viability of a wage statement claim. Wage statement claims are highly legalistic
9
and a non-expert plaintiff is not likely to understand whether a wage statement is “accurate” or not
10
under California law. Even if plaintiff was well-versed in California wage and hour requirements,
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
6
it would be difficult for him to identify inaccurate wage statements in this case by reference to the
12
wage statements alone. A wage statement claim that is derivative of a missed meal break claim
13
relies on a finding that employees were not compensated for missed meal breaks – this
14
information would not be obvious by reference to the wage statements themselves. Johnson’s
15
inability to identify any inaccurate wage statements does not demonstrate that these claims are
16
baseless.
17
C.
18
QED asserts that plaintiffs’ class claims were frivolous because plaintiffs’ counsel should
Plaintiff was only aware of seven employees who had interrupted meal breaks
19
have known they could never meet the numerosity requirement of Rule 23. While Johnson
20
testified that he was only aware of seven employees denied meal breaks at San Leandro, he also
21
testified that he could not be sure if a number of other employees were similarly denied breaks.
22
Further, he explained that there were approximately 22 employees at the San Leandro facility and
23
that QED had other facilities. At the outset of a case, prior to discovery, it may be difficult for
24
attorneys to assess basic information about a company, including its size and number of past and
25
present employees. As classes may be suitable for class treatment with as few as 21 members, it
26
was not unreasonable for plaintiffs’ counsel to believe that at least this many employees at QED
27
would be impacted by the meal break interruptions Johnson described.
28
QED notes that in January of 2016 it provided plaintiffs’ counsel with an affidavit stating
15
that there were only 15 non-exempt employees in California. While this certainly should have
2
given plaintiffs doubts about their ability to meet Rule 23’s numerosity requirements, plaintiffs’
3
counsel had reason to believe that there were at least 25 hourly QED employees in California
4
during the relevant period and reasonably could have believed that QED was mistaken in
5
designating certain employees as non-exempt or that the affidavit did not include all potential class
6
members. Plaintiffs did not have the opportunity to depose QED’s 30(b)(6) witnesses on this
7
topic until March 7, 2017. While it is now apparent that plaintiffs cannot meet the numerosity
8
requirement, plaintiffs’ counsel did not have the most definitive evidence on this topic until long
9
after filing the TAC, after QED filed its motion for sanctions, and after it filed its opposition on
10
the motion for class certification. Plaintiffs’ counsel reasonably could have believed they would
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
1
be able to meet Rule 23’s requirements until very recently in this case.
12
D.
13
QED asserts that plaintiffs’ counsel knew that Johnson was not typical of the class but
Plaintiff was not typical of the class
14
improperly pursued class claims anyway. They note that Johnson testified that he believed he had
15
been singled out by his supervisor and had received disparate treatment.
16
Plaintiffs’ counsel asserts that plaintiff’s testimony that he was bullied by his supervisor is
17
not mutually exclusive with the class claims because Johnson could both have been bullied by his
18
supervisor and subjected to an unlawful policy along with his co-workers. I agree. An employee
19
can be singled out or have a personal problem with a supervisor and still be similarly situated with
20
a class of coworkers on a separate or related employment issue. It was not frivolous for plaintiffs’
21
counsel to pursue class claims simply because Johnson believed he was targeted.
22
23
24
E.
Plaintiffs’ counsel has not even met Johnson, did not apprise Johnson about
the nature of his role as class representative, and did not adequately
communicate with him regarding the production and preservation of
documents
QED asserts that plaintiffs’ counsel failed to conduct a reasonable investigation because
25
they never met with plaintiff Johnson in person, not even at his deposition, which they defended
26
via videoconference. While there are certainly advantages to meeting a client in person, with
27
modern technologies an attorney is capable of interviewing a client, reviewing relevant evidence,
28
16
1
and conducting a preliminary investigation without meeting a client face-to-face. Although it is
2
surprising and poor practice that plaintiffs’ counsel have never met their client in person, and this
3
fact could explain some of the problems they faced in this case, by itself it does not definitively
4
demonstrate that they failed to conduct a reasonable investigation.
5
QED also notes that, at his deposition Johnson appeared surprised when QED informed
6
him that this case did not involve his personal claims against his supervisor. Johnson Depo. 75:1-
7
19. QED asserts that counsel’s failure to properly explain to Johnson his role as a class
8
representative demonstrates they failed to adequately investigate this case. While Johnson’s
9
confusion about the claims at issue in this case raises some concerns about the adequacy of
counsel’s communications with their client, it does not necessarily demonstrate that they failed to
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
adequately investigate the case themselves.
12
Finally, QED notes that Johnson destroyed a number of notes that he had taken about his
13
treatment at QED in 2015, after he had retained his counsel. QED asserts that this destruction of
14
evidence demonstrates a failure to conduct a reasonable investigation. This evidence is not
15
persuasive. Johnson clearly did not intend to destroy the notebook and testified that he was upset
16
it had accidentally been shredded because it contained helpful details about his supervisors’ bad
17
behavior. He also testified that he had produced all other relevant documents to his attorneys.
18
Given this testimony it appears that plaintiffs’ counsel told Johnson to produce all relevant
19
documents to them and that Johnson did so, but accidentally destroyed a notebook that would have
20
been helpful to his case. As there was no motivation for Johnson to destroy the notebook, it is
21
unclear what plaintiffs’ counsel could have done differently to prevent its destruction. The
22
destruction of the notebook does not demonstrate that plaintiffs’ attorneys failed to conduct a
23
reasonable investigation.
24
F.
25
QED has identified many weaknesses in plaintiffs’ case and the way it has been litigated.
Sanctions Motion Analysis
26
But the evidence shows that plaintiffs’ counsel communicated with Johnson and obtained and
27
reviewed all of the documents he had that dealt with his employment at QED, with the exception
28
of a notebook that Johnson had left at his mother’s house and which was accidentally destroyed.
17
1
Based on Johnson’s statements that QED had an auto-deduct policy, that it had 22 employees at
2
the San Leandro facility and had other facilities, and that his supervisor encouraged him and his
3
coworkers to miss meal breaks, it was not unreasonable for plaintiffs’ counsel to believe they
4
could succeed on their class action and FLSA claims. Further, without having the California
5
Addendum, it was reasonable for plaintiffs’ counsel to believe and assert that QED had a facially
6
non-compliant meal break policy. “An attorney may not be sanctioned for a complaint that is not
7
well-founded, so long as she conducted a reasonable inquiry.” In re Keegan Mgm’t Co., Securities
8
Litig., 78 F.3d 431, 434 (9th Cir. 1996).
I might feel differently about awarding sanctions if QED had clean hands. But it
10
stonewalled the 30(b)(6) deposition that would verify the lack of numerosity until I ordered it to
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
9
produce a person most knowledgeable. When a defendant has the information to defeat class
12
certification and refuses to provide it absent court order, it does not deserve to benefit from its
13
adversaries’ failures. Rule 11 sanctions are not appropriate here. QED’s motion for sanctions is
14
DENIED.
CONCLUSION
15
16
For the reasons outlined above QED’s motion to deny class certification is GRANTED;
17
plaintiffs’ motion for conditional FLSA certification is GRANTED IN PART with regard to
18
production line workers in San Leandro from the period of March 31, 2014 – August 22, 2014,
19
and DENIED with regard to all other employees and time periods; and QED’s motion for
20
sanctions is DENIED.
21
A Case Management Conference is set for May 23, 2017 at 2:00 p.m. The parties shall file
22
a Joint Case Management Statement by May 16, 2017, that proposes a schedule for this case
23
through trial.
24
25
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 3, 2017
26
27
William H. Orrick
United States District Judge
28
18
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?