Rai v. Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority et al

Filing 65

ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF HOFFMAN-LA ROCHE NOTICE AND FOR EQUITABLE TOLLING by Judge Paul S. Grewal granting in part and denying in part 47 Motion for conditional certification and equitable tolling (psglc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/2/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

SAN JOSE DIVISION

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15

BALJINDER RAI and RICHARD ROSA on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated,
Plaintiff,
v.
SANTA CLARA VALLEY
TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY,
Defendant.

16
17
18
19

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 5:12-CV-4344-PSG
ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART
MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF
HOFFMAN-LA ROCHE NOTICE
AND FOR EQUITABLE TOLLING
(Re: Docket No. 47)

In this wage-and-hour case, Plaintiffs Baljinder Rai and Richard Rosa (“Plaintiffs”)
move for conditional certification of the class for purposes of sending out notices to potential
class members pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq., and

20
21

Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. v. Sperling, 493 U.S. 165 (1989). Plaintiffs also requests equitable

22

tolling of the statute of limitations. Defendant Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority

23

(“SCVTA”) does not oppose preliminary approval at this time, but does oppose Plaintiffs’

24

equitable tolling request. Having carefully considered the papers and arguments of counsel, the

25

court GRANTS-IN-PART Plaintiffs’ motion, as follows:

26

1.

Pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) and cases interpreting it, the

27
Court finds that the Operators (as defined below) are similarly-situated. The court therefore
28
1
CASE NO.: 5:12-CV-4344-PSG
ORDER

1

conditionally certifies this action as a representative collective action, pursuant to 29 U.S.C.

2

§ 216(b);

3

2.

The court finds that notice should be sent to all prospective class members,

4

consisting of all individuals who are currently employed, or formerly have been employed, by

5

SCVTA as a bus or train operator or in an equivalent position at any time on or after August 17,

6

2009 ( “Operators”);

7
8
9

3.

SCVTA shall to produce to Plaintiffs’ counsel all Operators’ names, address

information, e-mail addresses, and telephone numbers of all Operators as defined above. Such

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

information shall be produced within ten days of the date of this order in Microsoft Excel or

11

another comparable spreadsheet format. The same information shall be produced to Plaintiffs’

12

counsel for any subsequently hired Operators within ten days of the first date of employment;

13
14

4.

The court approves the mailing, publication, and posting of the Notice and

Consent to Join form attached to Docket No. 47-2 as Exhibit A. The Notice and Consent to
15
16

Join form shall be sent to Operators within ten days of receipt by Plaintiffs’ counsel of their

17

contact information as described above in paragraph 3. The Notice and Consent to Join form

18

shall also be posted in a prominent location at each of the Defendant’s divisions (i.e., at the

19

North Division, the Guadalupe (Light Rail) Division, the Cerone Division, and the Chaboya

20

Division), transit centers and layover locations. SCVTA shall make a good faith effort to

21

ensure that each Notice posting shall have a reasonable number of Consent to Join forms

22
available with the Notice at all times during the Notice period, as defined below;
23
24

5.

Operators shall have until June 25, 2014 (the “Notice Period”), which is 60 days

25

before the date that has been set as the fact discovery cutoff, to postmark their Consent to Join

26

forms and mail such Consents to Plaintiffs’ counsel. This deadline may be extended by

27

stipulation signed by counsel for all parties and filed with the court;

28
2
CASE NO.: 5:12-CV-4344-PSG
ORDER

6.

1

Plaintiffs’ counsel shall make all reasonable attempts to locate current addresses

2

for any individual for whom a Notice is returned as undeliverable and shall promptly re-send

3

the Notice to the current address. Plaintiffs’ counsel shall keep a record of the addresses that it

4

updates and the dates on which those Notices were sent to those addresses. Plaintiffs’ counsel

5

need not re-send the Notice to any particular individual more than two times;

6
7
8
9

7.

Equitable tolling “freezes” the statute of limitations and allows potential

plaintiffs to join the suit if they were barred from joining through no fault of their own.1
Equitable tolling focuses on “concerns of fairness to claimants,”2 and is generally warranted in

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

the following circumstances: (1) plaintiffs actively pursued their legal remedies, or (2)

11

defendant’s misconduct induced failure to meet the deadline.3 Equitable tolling is warranted

12

here because SCVTA, without justification, refused to provide Plaintiffs with identifying

13

information necessary to contact potential class members.4 In the interests of fairness to the

14
potential plaintiffs, who have yet to receive notice of the pending action through no fault of
15
16
17

their own,5 the statute of limitations shall be tolled from the time Plaintiffs made a formal
demand for the contact information, or January 4, 2013,6 through the date that SCVTA supplies

18
1

19

See Partlow v. Jewish Orphans' Home of S. California, Inc., 645 F.2d 757, 760 (9th Cir. 1981)
abrogated on other grounds by Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. v. Sperling, 493 U.S. 165 (1989).

20

2

21

Irwin v. Dep't of Veterans Affairs, 498 U.S. 89, 100 (1990) (White, J., concurring); Partlow, 645
F.2d at 760-61.
3

23

See Adams v. Inter-Con Sec. Sys., 242 F.R.D. 530, 542-43 (N.D. Cal. 2007) (holding that tolling
was warranted where “potential plaintiffs in the case [had] yet to receive notice of the action due to
defendant’s refusal to supply potential plaintiffs’ contact information to the named plaintiffs.”).
See also Baldozier v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., 375 F. Supp. 2d 1089, 1093 (D. Colo. 2005).

24

4

25

5

22

26
27

Owens v. Bethlehem Mines Corp., 630 F. Supp. 309, 312-13 (S.D.W. Va. 1986) (holding that
where the court did not rule on the plaintiff’s motion for class certification for over a year, tolling
was warranted because potential plaintiffs had been prevented from timely opting-in through no
fault of their own).
6

28

See id.

Plaintiffs claim they requested the contact information in their complaint, filed on August 17,
2012. However, they did not formally request the contact information until January 4, 2013, which
3
CASE NO.: 5:12-CV-4344-PSG
ORDER

1

Plaintiffs’ counsel the contact information addressed in Paragraph 3.

2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

3

Dated: August 2, 2013

4
5

_________________________________
PAUL S. GREWAL
United States Magistrate Judge

6
7
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Defendants denied, arguing that Plaintiffs could obtain the information elsewhere. See Docket No.
51 at 2.
4
CASE NO.: 5:12-CV-4344-PSG
ORDER