Robinson v. Open Top Sightseeing San Francisco, LLC

Filing 239

JUDGMENT. Signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton on 2/14/2018. (pjhlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/14/2018)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 HAROLD C. ROBINSON, et al., 9 10 11 Case No. 14-cv-00852-PJH Plaintiffs, 8 v. JUDGMENT OPEN TOP SIGHTSEEING SAN FRANCISCO, LLC, United States District Court Northern District of California Defendants. 12 13 14 This action came before the court for a bifurcated trial. A trial by jury was held on 15 October 2, 2017, with the undersigned judge presiding. On October 5, 2017, the jury 16 rendered a verdict against defendant Open Top Sightseeing San Francisco, LLC (“Open 17 Top”) and in favor of plaintiffs that Open Top’s violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act 18 (“FLSA”) was willful, and that Open Top knowingly and intentionally failed to provide 19 plaintiffs with accurate wage statements because the operators’ wage statements failed 20 to set forth the applicable overtime worked and Open Top’s full legal name. The jury also 21 rendered a verdict in favor of defendant and against plaintiffs that Open Top did not fail to 22 provide plaintiffs with rest breaks. 23 24 25 26 A bench trial addressing damages and penalties was held before the undersigned judge on October 10, 2017. The court found the following: Plaintiffs take nothing under California Labor Code § 226.7 because Open Top did not fail to provide rest breaks to class members. 27 The parties having stipulated that the UCL overtime restitution amount for plaintiffs 28 claim brought under California Business and Professions Code § 17200 is $410,000, the 1 court awards plaintiffs $410,000. The court awards prejudgment interest totaling $130,217.26 on plaintiffs UCL 2 3 overtime restitution. The court granted plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on Open Top’s liability 4 5 on the overtime claim under the FLSA and for liquidated damages under the same. 6 However, plaintiffs’ FLSA overtime award is subsumed by the UCL overtime restitution 7 and plaintiffs did not present sufficient evidence during the bench trial to support a 8 liquidated damages award. Plaintiffs therefore take nothing for their FLSA cause of 9 action. The jury verdict found that Open Top failed to provide plaintiffs with accurate wage 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 statements as required by California Labor Code § 226 because the wage statements did 12 not include applicable overtime worked or Open Top’s full legal name. Plaintiffs take 13 nothing under the latter theory because no argument was presented. The court, 14 however, finds that Open Top violated § 226 one hundred twenty-eight times by failing to 15 include applicable overtime in plaintiffs’ wage statements, for total statutory penalties of 16 $6,400. The court also awards plaintiffs $12,800 in civil penalties under California Labor 17 Code § 2699(f)(2) based on the § 226 violations. Penalties recovered under § 2699(f)(2) 18 should be distributed in accordance with § 2699(j). 19 The court granted plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on Open Top’s liability 20 under California Labor Code § 203. The court awards plaintiffs $311,417 under § 203, as 21 supported by plaintiffs’ expert’s testimony. Plaintiffs take nothing under § 2699 based on 22 Open Top’s violations of § 203 because § 2699 is not the applicable civil penalty statute. 23 The court finds there is no basis to issue injunctive relief. 24 Consequently, 25 it is Ordered, Adjudged and Decreed 26 that judgment be entered in favor of plaintiffs in accordance with the above in the 27 amount of $870,834.26 and against defendant Open Top. Any party may file their/its 28 application for fees and costs associated with only those claims for which they/it were the 2 1 2 3 4 5 prevailing party, pursuant to and as provided by applicable statutes and rules. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: February 14, 2018 __________________________________ PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON United States District Judge 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

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?