Hinds et al v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc. et al
Filing
201
ORDER by Judge Jeffrey S. White Granting 180 MOTION TO STRIKE PAGA CLAIM ASSERTED AGAINST DEFENDANT FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM, INC. (dts, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/25/2022)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
MICHELLE HINDS, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
8
9
v.
FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM,
INC., et al.,
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
Case No. 18-cv-01431-JSW
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
STRIKE PAGA CLAIM ASSERTED
AGAINST DEFENDANT FEDEX
GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM, INC.
Defendants.
Re: Dkt. No. 180
12
13
On January 3, 2022, the Court reserved ruling on Defendant FedEx Ground Package
14
System, Inc.’s (“FedEx”) motion to strike Plaintiffs’ claim under the California Labor Code
15
Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”). Dkt. No. 184, “January 3 Order”. The Court has
16
recounted the facts underlying Plaintiffs’ dispute with FedEx in prior orders and will not repeat
17
those facts here. In brief, FedEx has contracted with independent service providers (“ISPs”), one
18
of which was defendant Bay Rim Services, Inc. (“Bay Rim”). Plaintiffs each worked as drivers
19
for Bay Rim, and their theory of the case is that FedEx is liable as a joint employer for alleged
20
labor code violations. Plaintiffs also seek PAGA penalties on behalf of themselves and
21
approximately 20,000 other individuals who were directly employed by over 500 ISPs.
22
On August 18, 2021, the Court denied Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification, finding that
23
individualized issues predominated over common issues. FedEx then moved to strike or to
24
dismiss the PAGA claim arguing Plaintiffs did not have standing and that the claim against FedEx
25
would be unmanageable. In the January 3 Order, the Court concluded that, at this stage, Plaintiffs
26
had shown they were “aggrieved employees” for purposes of their individual PAGA claims but
27
deferred ruling on whether Plaintiffs would have standing to pursue the claim on behalf of
28
individuals who were employed by other ISPs. The Court also provided Plaintiffs a further
1
opportunity to present a trial plan and directed that any proposed plan “shall address any
2
affirmative defenses to be asserted by FedEx.” January 3 Order at 8:22-23. The parties met and
3
conferred, as directed, and have submitted their supplemental briefs. For the reasons that follow,
4
the Court GRANTS FedEx’s motion.
When the Court reserved issuing a final ruling on FedEx’s motion to strike, it noted a
5
6
recent opinion from the California Court of Appeal for the Second District, which concluded a
7
court could strike or dismiss a PAGA claim for lack of manageability. Wesson v. Staples the
8
Office Superstore, LLC, 68 Cal. App. 5th 746, 851 (2021).1 However, on March 23, 2022, Court
9
of Appeal for the Fourth District held otherwise. Estrada v. Royalty Carpet Mills, Inc., 76 Cal.
App. 5th 585, 2022 WL 855568, at *1, *10-12 (4th Dist. Mar. 23, 2022). As noted in those
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
opinions, there also is a split of authority within the district courts about whether a court may
12
dismiss or strike a PAGA claim based on manageability. See, e.g., Estrada, 2022 WL 855568, at
13
*10; Wesson, 68 Cal. App. 5th at 857 n.10.2
In reaching its conclusion, the Wesson court relied on the principle that courts have the
14
15
inherent authority to manage complex litigation. 68 Cal. App. 5th at 763-64. It also reasoned that
16
permitting a court to strike PAGA claim based on that authority would not conflict with PAGA’s
17
purpose, in part because not every claim would be subject to dismissal. Id. at 768-69. The
18
Wesson court also emphasized that it was not creating a per se rule; if a court relies on its inherent
19
authority to strike a PAGA claim, it should not do so lightly even if the PAGA claim is
20
“procedurally challenging.” Id. at 862, 864 (and noting, in context of class certification “refusing
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
“When interpreting state law, federal courts are bound by decisions of the state’s highest
court. In the absence of such a decision, a federal court must predict how the highest state court
would decide the issue using intermediate appellate court decisions, decisions from other
jurisdictions, statutes, treatises, and restatements as guidance. However, where there is no
convincing evidence that the state supreme court would decide differently, a federal court is
obligated to follow the decisions of the state’s intermediate appellate courts.” Vestar Dev. II, LLC
v. Gen. Dynamics Corp., 249 F.3d 958, 960 (9th Cir. 2001) (internal quotation omitted).
2
See, e.g., January 3 Order at 5:6-9; Ortiz v. Amazon.com, LLC, No. 17-cv-3920-JSW, 2020
WL 5232592, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 2, 2020) (citing cases reflecting split, requiring plaintiff to
present a trial plan prior to ruling on whether PAGA claim would be manageable, and denying
motion to strike without prejudice); Delgado v. Marketsource, Inc., No. 17-cv-07370-LHK, 2019
WL 1904216, at *4-5 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 29, 2019) (declining to follow cases imposing a
manageability requirement on PAGA claims).
2
1
to certify on manageability grounds alone should be the last resort”) (quoting Noel v. Thrifty
2
Payless, Inc., 7 Cal. 5th 955, 978 (2019), in turn quoting Mullins v. Direct Digital, LLC, 795 F.3d
3
654, 664 (7th Cir. 2015)); see also Briseno v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., 844 F.3d 1121, 1128 (9th Cir.
4
2017) (citing Mullins with approval). Where possible, courts “should work with the parties to
5
render a PAGA claim manageable by adopting a feasible trial plan or limiting the claim’s scope.”
6
Id.; accord Briseno, 844 F.3d at 1128.
7
In contrast, the Estrada court highlighted that a plaintiff who asserts a PAGA claim is
8
acting “‘as the proxy or agent of the state’s labor law enforcement agencies’ and ‘represents the
9
same legal right and interest as the state labor law enforcement agencies – namely recovery of
civil penalties that otherwise would have been assessed and collected by the” Labor and
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
Workforce Development Agency. 2022 WL 855568, at *11 (quoting Arias v. Sup. Ct., 46 Cal. 4th
12
969, 986 (2009)). It reasoned that “to dismiss PAGA claims based on manageability would
13
interfere with PAGA’s express design as a law enforcement mechanism.” Id. at *12.
14
Although the Estrada court held that it is not proper to dismiss a PAGA claim for lack of
15
manageability, it acknowledged that “[s]ome PAGA claims involve hundreds or thousands of
16
alleged aggrieved employees, each with unique factual circumstances.” Id. To address such
17
concerns, “courts may, where appropriate and within reason, limit witness testimony and other
18
forms of evidence when determining the number of violations that occurred and the amount of
19
penalties to assess.” Id. As one example, the court suggested that the alleged violations could be
20
“narrowed … to employees at a single location or department.” Id. at *12 n.8. That approach, the
21
court reasoned, might encourage litigants to be “prudent in their approach to PAGA claims” and
22
would not be unfair to unrepresented aggrieved employees because “‘absent employees do not
23
own a personal claim for PAGA civil penalties, and whatever personal claims the absent might
24
have for relief are not at stake.’ … If a plaintiff alleges widespread violations of the Labor Code
25
by an employer in a PAGA action but cannot prove them in an efficient manner, it does not seem
26
unreasonable for the punishment assessed to be minimal.” Id. (quoting Williams v. Sup. Ct., 3 Cal.
27
5th 531, 547 n.4 (2017)).
28
It is clear that courts “possesses inherent powers that are ‘governed not by rule or statute
3
1
but by the control necessarily vested in courts to manage their own affairs to as to achieve the
2
orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.’” Deitz v. Bouldin, 579 U.S. 40, 45 (2016) (quoting
3
Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31 (1962)). When a court uses that discretion, it “must
4
be a reasonable response to a specific problem and [it] cannot contradict any express rule or
5
statute.” Id. Barring a definitive ruling from the California Supreme Court, Wesson does provide
6
support for the conclusion that striking a PAGA claim would not directly contradict that statute.
7
As noted, Plaintiffs’ theory is that FedEx jointly employs any individual employed by any
ISP. Thus, Plaintiffs’ ability to obtain any PAGA penalties from FedEx, whether for themselves
9
or for other aggrieved individuals, depends upon a finding that FedEx was their joint employer
10
and a joint employer for individuals employed by other ISPs. That critical issue has yet to be
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
8
decided. Plaintiffs maintain that their case in chief will be manageable because they will use
12
FedEx Scanner Data and expert testimony to establish the number of violations by FedEx that may
13
have occurred. They also argue that any manageability issues arise from FedEx’s affirmative
14
defenses, which they claim are legal issues. They have advised that their trial plan is to file a
15
motion for summary judgment on those defenses and, if unsuccessful, will rely on records
16
produced by FedEx and their expert to show that no drivers took a meal break. In light of the
17
Court’s conclusions on the motion for class certification, the Court concludes that plan does not
18
adequately take into consideration FedEx’s affirmative defenses.
19
Plaintiffs also continue to argue that FedEx can be held liable for alleged rest and meal
20
break violations even if an ISP complied with its obligations to its employees, citing Serrano v.
21
Aerotek, Inc., 21 Cal. App. 5th 773 (2018), disapproved on other grounds by Donohue v. AMN
22
Servs., LLC, 11 Cal. 5th 58, 77 (2021). The Court considered Serrano in connection with the
23
motion for class certification and still is not persuaded that Serrano stands for the proposition that
24
an employee might recover a “windfall” from a joint employer “even though a direct employer
25
actually complied with the Labor Code and with Wage Order 9.” (Order Denying Mot. for Class
26
Cert. at 16:6-14.) Therefore, the Court also concludes Plaintiffs’ continued reliance on this theory
27
does not adequately address how the Court could resolve the PAGA claim and determine penalties
28
that might be owed by FedEx for individuals employed at ISPs who fully complied with the Labor
4
1
2
Code provisions at issue.
The non-party aggrieved employees may not have a personal claim for PAGA penalties,
but a PAGA claim “functions as a substitute for an action brought by the government itself, a
4
judgment in that action binds all those, including nonparty aggrieved employees, who would be
5
bound by a judgment in an action brought by the government.” Arias, 46 Cal. 4th at 986
6
(emphasis added). The Court will assume for the sake of argument that Plaintiffs would have
7
standing under PAGA to pursue claims against FedEx for individuals directly employed by ISPs
8
other than Bay Rim. Plaintiffs have not persuaded the Court that they have a viable trial plan to
9
make the PAGA claim manageable as to violations on behalf of those aggrieved employees, who
10
could be bound by a judgment that FedEx was not their joint employer. Arias, 46 Cal. 4th at 986.
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
3
Further, neither Wesson nor Estrada addressed the issue of striking a PAGA claim in the context
12
of joint employment and can be distinguished on that basis.
13
14
15
16
17
18
Accordingly, the Court will exercise its inherent authority to limit Plaintiffs’ PAGA claim
the alleged violations by Bay Rim and GRANTS FedEx’s motion to strike.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 25, 2022
______________________________________
JEFFREY S. WHITE
United States District Judge
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
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?