Antonelli et al v. Finish Line, Inc et al

Filing 89

ORDER FOR FURTHER BRIEFING. On or before 1/31/2014, Plaintiffs shall file an additional brief, not exceeding 10 pages. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 1/22/2014. (ejdlc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/22/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

SAN JOSE DIVISION
CASE NO. 5:11-cv-03874 EJD

CRYSTAL ANTONELLI, et. al.,

11

ORDER FOR FURTHER BRIEFING
Plaintiff(s),

For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13

v.
DAVID MEYER,

14
Defendant(s).
15
16

/
Pending before the court is a “prove up” motion filed by Plaintiffs Crystal Antonelli, Anny

17

Chi, Alisha Elam, Analynn Foronda, and Karen Lopez (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), the purpose of

18

which is to determine the appropriate types and amounts of damages that are awardable against

19

Defendant David Meyer (“Defendant”) after the court granted a Motion for Judgment on the

20

Pleadings against him. See Docket Item No. 69.

21

As part of their damages request, Plaintiffs seek an award of attorney’s fees and costs under

22

California’s Private Attorney General Act (“PAGA”), California Labor Code § 2699(g), and argue

23

they are entitled to such an award because they prevailed on a cause of action under Labor Code §

24

435(a) against Meyer. According to its plain language, that section only prohibits certain conduct

25

by an employer. Cal. Lab. Code § 435(a) (“No employer may cause an audio or video recording to

26

be made of an employee in a restroom, locker room, or room designated by an employer for

27

changing clothes, unless authorized by court order.”). Plaintiffs, however, have not alleged that

28

Meyer was their employer, but was instead their manager and supervisor. See Compl., Docket Item
1
CASE NO. 5:11-cv-03874 EJD
ORDER FOR FURTHER BRIEFING

1

No. 1, at ¶ 11 (“Plaintiffs, at all relevant times, were managed and supervised by Defendant Meyer

2

at the aforementioned Finish Line retail store located in Milpitas, California.”). Nor did Plaintiffs

3

identify Meyer as an employer in the requisite pre-suit notice provided to the Labor and Workforce

4

Development Agency (“LWDA”) pursuant to Labor Code § 2699.3. See id., at Exs. C, D

5

(identifying Finish Line, Inc. as Plaintiffs’ “employer.”).

6
7
8

Accordingly, on or before January 31, 2014, Plaintiffs shall file an additional brief, not
exceeding 10 pages, which discusses the following questions:
(1)

9

§ 435(a) and, if so, why?
(2)

Does the fact that Plaintiffs failed to identify Meyer as an “employer” in their pre-suit

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

Does Meyer qualify as an “employer” for the purposes of liability under Labor Code

notice to the LWDA preclude Plaintiffs from pursuing an action against him under

12

Labor Code § 435(a)?1

13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14
15

Dated: January 22, 2014
EDWARD J. DAVILA
United States District Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

As a point of direction, Plaintiffs should answer these questions without relying solely on
the order granting the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings since that order can always be modified
if a portion of it was entered in error. See United States v. Martin, 226 F.3d 1042, 1049 (9th Cir.
2000) (recognizing that until a final order is entered, the district court has “inherent jurisdiction to
modify, alter, or revoke it.”).
2
CASE NO. 5:11-cv-03874 EJD
ORDER FOR FURTHER BRIEFING