Ortiz v. Amazon.com LLC et al

Filing 200

ORDER by Judge Jeffrey S. White DENYING, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, 191 Motion to Strike. (jswlc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/2/2020)

Case 4:17-cv-03820-JSW Document 200 Filed 09/02/20 Page 1 of 4

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

MICHAEL ORTIZ,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
STRIKE PAGA CLAIM, WITHOUT
PREJUDICE

v.
AMAZON.COM LLC, et al.,

Re: Dkt. No. 191

Defendants.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 17-cv-03820-JSW

12
13

Now before the Court for consideration is the motion to strike Plaintiff’s claim for

14

penalties under the California Labor Code’s Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA claim”), filed

15

by Defendants Amazon.com LLC and Golden State FC LLC (“Defendants’). The Court has

16

considered the parties’ papers, relevant legal authority, and the record in this case, and it HEREBY

17

DENIES Defendants’ motion. This ruling is without prejudice to Defendants renewing the motion

18

after the parties have met and conferred regarding the trial plan required by this Order.
BACKGROUND

19
20

The Court has set forth the facts underlying this dispute in several prior orders, including

21

orders: on Defendants’ motions to dismiss; denying Plaintiff’s motion for collective action;

22

granting, in part, and denying, in part, Defendants’ motion for summary judgment; and denying

23

Plaintiff’s motion for class certification. (See Dkt. Nos. 29, 50-51, 133, 181.) The Court shall not

24

repeat those facts, except as necessary to provide context for this Order. Defendants now move to

25

strike or dismiss Plaintiff’s PAGA claim on the basis that a representative action will be

26

unmanageable.

27
28

At the time Defendants filed the motion, Plaintiff advised them that he intended to seek
relief on behalf of all persons employed as Level 4 Managers by Defendants in California at any

Case 4:17-cv-03820-JSW Document 200 Filed 09/02/20 Page 2 of 4

1

time during the relevant limitations period. (Dkt. No. 191-1, Declaration of Megan Cooney, ¶ 2.)

2

In his opposition, Plaintiff asserts that he will seek relief on behalf of “Level 4 Shift Managers,” a

3

group he argues consists of no more than 150 individuals. (Dkt. No. 196-1, Declaration of Laura

4

Van Note, ¶ 10.) Although that description is not explicitly coextensive with the putative class of

5

individuals Plaintiff sought to represent on his other claims, the record supports that inference.

6

A.

Applicable Legal Standards.
Defendants move to strike or dismiss pursuant to either Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

7

12(c) or 12(f), or pursuant to the Court’s inherent powers. Defendants expressly rely on the

9

record on Plaintiff’s motion for class certification in support of their motion, which brings it

10

outside the scope of a motion for judgment on the pleadings. See, e.g., Dworkin v. Hustler

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

8

Magazine Inc., 867 F.2d 1188, 1192 (9th Cir. 1989); Valadez v. CSX Intermodal Terminals, 298 F.

12

Supp. 3d 1254, 1264 (N.D. Cal. 2018).
The Court also concludes that Rule 12(f) is not the appropriate vehicle to resolve this

13
14

motion. Cf. Azad v. Tokio Marine HCC-Med. Ins. Servs. LLC, No. 17-cv-0618-PJH, 2017 WL

15

3007040, at *8 (N.D. Cal. July 14, 2017) (concluding that a motion to strike was not the proper

16

vehicle to test class action allegations).
The Court will evaluate Defendant’s motion pursuant to its inherent powers. “[A] district

17
18

court possesses inherent powers that are ‘governed not by rule or statute but by the control

19

necessarily vested in courts to manage their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and

20

expeditious disposition of cases.’” Deitz v. Bouldin, __ U.S. __, 136 S.Ct. 1885, 1891 (2016)

21

(quoting Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-631 (1962)). When the Court applies its

22

inherent power, it “must be a reasonable response to a specific problem and the power cannot

23

contradict any express rule or statute.” Id., 136 S.Ct. at 1892.

24

B.

25

The Court Denies Defendants’ Motion, Without Prejudice.
Defendants argue the Court should strike or dismiss the PAGA Claim because Ortiz has

26

not complied with the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. The Ninth Circuit has

27

not directly addressed this question, although it has held “that PAGA actions are … not

28

sufficiently similar to Rule 23 class actions to trigger CAFA jurisdiction” and stated that “a PAGA
2

Case 4:17-cv-03820-JSW Document 200 Filed 09/02/20 Page 3 of 4

1

suit is fundamentally different than a class action.” Baumann v. Chase Inv. Servs., Inc., 747 F.3d

2

1117, 1122-23 (9th Cir. 2014). District courts within the Ninth Circuit have split on this issue.

3

Although this Court previously followed the minority view, it subsequently reversed course.

4

Wilner v. Manpower, No. 11-cv-02846-JSW, 2012 WL 1570789 (N.D. Cal. May 3, 2012).

5

Defendant asks the Court to revisit the Wilner decision, but the Court finds no basis to do

6

so. For the reasons set forth in its Wilner decision, the Court concludes Plaintiff is not required to

7

comply with the requirements of Rule 23 to pursue his PAGA claim. Id., 2012 WL 1570789, at

8

*7-*9. Accordingly, the Court DENIES, IN PART, the motion on that basis.

9

Even if Plaintiff would not be required to show, under Rule 23, that his PAGA claim is
manageable, that conclusion does not end the Court’s analysis. Some courts have concluded that

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

pursuant to their inherent authority, they would have the power to strike a PAGA claim as

12

unmanageable. See, e.g., Mays v. WalMart Stores, Inc., No. CV 18-02318-AB (KKx), 2018 WL

13

6264992, at *4-*5 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 1, 2018) (citing cases but denying motion to strike on basis that

14

claims were manageable); Salazar v. McDonalds, Corp., No. 2017 WL 88999, at *8-*9 (N.D. Cal.

15

Jan 5, 2017) (based on record presented on motion for class certification striking PAGA claim

16

consisting of 1,200 aggrieved employees based on unmanageability); cf. Raphael v. Tesoro

17

Refining & Marketing Co. LLC, No. 15-cv-02862-ODW, 2015 WL 5680310, at *3 (C.D. Cal.

18

Sept. 25, 2015) (granting motion for judgment on the pleadings and concluding PAGA claim

19

consisting “thousands” of current and former employees would be unmanageable). Other courts

20

have declined to impose a manageability requirement on a PAGA claim. See, e.g., Delgado v.

21

Marketsource, Inc., No. 17-cv-07370-LHK, 2019 WL 1904216, at *4-*5 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 29,

22

2019) (citing cases); Zackaria v. WalMart Stores, Inc., 142 F. Supp. 3d 949, 958 (C.D. Cal. 2015).

23

The Court recognizes the record in this case is more robust than the record in Mays. The

24

Court also has pointed out the various areas where individualized issues would be required to

25

determine whether Level 4 Shift Managers are primarily engaged in duties that meet the text of the

26

executive exemption. However, because the Court concludes Plaintiff was not required comply

27

with Rule 23 in connection with the PAGA claim, it concludes it is appropriate to require Plaintiff

28

to offer a trial plan before making a ruling about whether it should exercise its inherent authority
3

Case 4:17-cv-03820-JSW Document 200 Filed 09/02/20 Page 4 of 4

1
2

and strike the PAGA claim as unmanageable.
By no later than January 8, 2021, Plaintiff shall provide Defendants with his proposed trial

3

plan on the PAGA claim, and the parties shall meet and confer, as that term is defined by the

4

Northern District Local Rules, about Plaintiff’s proposal. If the parties cannot reach agreement,

5

and if Defendants maintain the PAGA action is not manageable, they may renew their motion and

6

shall address why Plaintiff’s proposed trial will not address their manageability concerns.

7
8
9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 2, 2020
______________________________________
JEFFREY S. WHITE
United States District Judge

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
4