Canela v. Costco Wholesale Corporation et al
Filing
61
ORDER GRANTING 57 DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR CERTIFICATION OF INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL; AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S REQUEST FOR STAY OF THE CASE. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 6/15/2018. (blflc4S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/15/2018)
1
2
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
5
SAN JOSE DIVISION
6
7
8
LILIANA CANELA, , individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff,
9
v.
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION,
and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,
Defendants.
12
Case No. 13-cv-03598-BLF
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR CERTIFICATION OF
INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL; AND
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S
REQUEST FOR STAY OF THE CASE
[Re: ECF 57]
13
14
Before the Court is Defendant Costco Wholesale Corporation’s (“Costco”) motion for
15
16
certification of interlocutory appeal of the Court’s Order Denying Defendant’s Motion for Partial
17
Summary Judgment (“Order,” ECF 55) and motion for stay pending appeal. Mot., ECF 57.
18
Plaintiff Liliana Canela opposes the motion. Opp’n, ECF 59. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b),
19
the Court finds Costco’s motion to be suitable for submission without oral argument and hereby
20
VACATES the hearing scheduled for July 12, 2018. Having considered the briefing, as well as
21
the governing law, the Court GRANTS Costco’s motion for certification of interlocutory appeal.
22
The Court DEFERS ruling on Costco’s request for a stay pending an appeal so that the parties may
23
submit a joint statement in light of this order.
24
25
I.
LEGAL STANDARD
Generally, the United States Courts of Appeals have jurisdiction over appeals from “final
26
decisions of the district courts.” 28 U.S.C. § 1291. However, a district court may certify an order
27
for interlocutory review where (1) there is a controlling question of law upon which (2) there is a
28
substantial ground for difference of opinion, and (3) the immediate appeal of which will materially
1
advance the ultimate termination of the litigation. 28 U.S.C. §1292(b); In re Cement Antitrust
2
Litig., 673 F.2d 1020, 1026 (9th Cir. 1982). The purpose of § 1292(b) is to provide “immediate
3
appeal of interlocutory orders deemed pivotal and debatable.” Swint v. Chambers Cnty. Comm’n,
4
514 U.S. 35, 46 (1995). Section 1292(b) certifications should be “applied sparingly and only in
5
exceptional cases.” United States v. Woodbury, 263 F.2d 784, 788 n.11 (9th Cir. 1959).
6
II.
Costco seeks to certify the Order for interlocutory review by the Ninth Circuit under 28
7
8
DISCUSSION
U.S.C. § 1292(b) based on the following questions:
9
1. Whether, absent class certification, a PAGA plaintiff in federal
court has Article III standing to represent absent aggrieved
employees (the “Article III standing issue”).
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
2. Whether a PAGA plaintiff in federal court can represent absent
aggrieved employees without qualifying for class certification under
Rule 23 (the “Rule 23 certification issue”).
12
13
Notice of Motion, ECF 57. Costco asserts that each question involves a controlling question of
14
law as to which there is a substantial ground for difference of opinion and that an immediate
15
appeal may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation. See generally Mot.
16
A.
17
The Article III Standing Issue
i.
Controlling Question of Law
18
Costco argues that whether Canela has standing to represent unnamed aggrieved
19
employees under PAGA without class certification is a “controlling question of law.” Mot. 5.
20
Canela admits that this issue is a controlling question of law. Opp’n 2.
The Court agrees with the parties. In the Order, the Court recognized that the Article III
21
22
standing issue raised by Costco is a purely legal question that does not depend on a material
23
dispute of fact. Order 6. That issue is also “controlling” because a reversal on appeal would mean
24
that Canela could pursue only her individual PAGA claim or that Canela cannot pursue her PAGA
25
claim in federal court at all.1 Therefore, Canela’s PAGA claim would be materially affected by
26
1
27
28
The parties dispute whether a plaintiff can pursue an individual PAGA claim. Costco claims that
Canela can assert her individual PAGA claim, and represents that it is ready to engage in
settlement discussions if she does so. Tr. for Hearing on Mot. for Summary Judgment 38:10–12,
ECF 50. Canela contends that a PAGA claim may not proceed on an individual basis. Opp’n 3.
2
1
the Ninth Circuit’s resolution of the standing issue. In re Cement Antitrust, 673 F.2d at 1026
2
(“[A]ll that must be shown in order for a question [of law] to be ‘controlling’ is that resolution of
3
the issue on appeal could materially affect the outcome of litigation in the district court.”). The
4
Court thus finds that the first requirement for § 1292(b) is satisfied.
5
6
ii.
Substantial Ground for Difference of Opinion
Costco asserts that a substantial ground for difference of opinion exists as to the Article III
7
standing issue because an “intra-district conflict has lasted for almost a decade.” Mot. 7–8.
8
Canela disagrees and argues that the Court relied on the California Supreme Court and Ninth
9
Circuit’s respective opinions in Iskanian v. CLS Transp. Los Angeles, LLC, 59 Cal. 4th 348 (Cal.
2014) and Sakkab v. Luxottica Retail N. Am., Inc., 803 F.3d 425 (9th Cir. 2015) to reach its
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
conclusion. Opp’n 2.
12
The Court is persuaded by Costco’s argument. While the Court relied on Iskanian and
13
Sakkab to reach its conclusion, the Court recognized that the Ninth Circuit has not addressed the
14
Article III standing issue. Order at 8. Moreover, courts within this circuit have split on whether a
15
plaintiff has standing to pursue PAGA claims without satisfying Rule 23 requirements at least
16
since 2009. Order 7–8 (collecting cases). Accordingly, the Court finds that the Article III
17
standing issue presents a disputed and difficult question which the Ninth Circuit has not addressed.
18
On this basis, the Court concludes that Costco has shown the existence of a substantial ground for
19
difference of opinion as to the Article III standing issue. Couch v. Telescope Inc., 611 F.3d 629,
20
633 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding that a substantial ground for difference of opinion may be found
21
where “the circuits are in dispute on the question and the court of appeals of the circuit has not
22
spoken on the point, . . . or if novel and difficult questions of first impression are presented”); see
23
also Wishnev v. Nw. Mut. Life Ins. Co., No. 15-CV-03797-EMC, 2016 WL 9223857, at *1 (N.D.
24
Cal. Mar. 28, 2016) (finding that the second § 1292(b) requirement is met where the Ninth Circuit
25
has not addressed the issue and there is a split of authority between the courts on a pure legal
26
question).
27
28
Thus, she believes that this case should be remanded to state court if the Ninth Circuit reverses the
Order. Id.
3
iii.
1
Material Advance of the Ultimate Termination of the Litigation
Costco contends that resolution of the Article III issue would materially advance the
2
3
4
termination of this action because a reversal by the Ninth Circuit would dispose of “virtually all of
this action, in terms of its magnitude.” Mot. 5. Costco claims that if Canela lacks standing to
represent unnamed aggrieved employees, “only her individual suit should remain.” Id. Canela
5
responds that Costco will have a right to appeal after the trial which is about three months away.
6
7
Opp’n 3. Canela further argues that a reversal by the Ninth Circuit would not “terminate” this
litigation because a “PAGA claim may not proceed on an individual basis” and this case would be
8
remanded to state court. Id.
9
The Court finds that a successful interlocutory appeal on the Article III issue would
10
materially advance the termination of this litigation. If Canela is limited to pursuing only her
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
individual PAGA claim, as Costco contends, the trial would involve fewer disputed issues and it
12
would be more likely that the parties would reach a settlement given Costco’s willingness to settle
13
this case under that circumstance. Tr. for Hearing on Mot. for Summary Judgment 38:10–12.
14
Further, if Canela cannot assert an individual PAGA claim, Canela asserts that she would request
15
remand to state court. Under these circumstances, the Court finds that the third § 1292(b)
16
requirement is satisfied. Rollins v. Dignity Health, No. 13-CV-01450-TEH, 2014 WL 6693891, at
17
*4 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 26, 2014) (holding that the increased certainty on disputed issues and the
18
higher possibility of settlement would materially advance the termination of litigation); see also
19
Securities and Exchange Commission v. Mercury Interactive, LLC, No. 07–cv–02822–JF, 2011
20
21
22
WL 1335733, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 7, 2011) (“A final resolution as the scope of the statute would
have a significant effect on the trial of this action, and perhaps upon the parties’ efforts to reach
settlement.”).
23
iv.
24
Conclusion
Accordingly, Costco has satisfied its burden to show all three § 1292(b) requirements for
25
certifying the Article III standing issue for an interlocutory appeal.
26
//
27
//
28
4
1
2
B.
The Rule 23 Certification Issue
i.
Controlling Question of Law
Costco argues that whether Canela can represent absent aggrieved employees without
3
4
5
qualifying for class certification under Rule 23 is a “controlling question of law.” Mot. 8–9.
Canela agrees. Opp’n 2.
In accordance with the parties’ agreement, the Court finds that the second question raised
6
by Costco is a controlling question of law. In the Order, the Court recognized that the Rule 23
7
certification issue is a purely legal question that does not depend on a material dispute of fact.
8
9
Order 6. That issue is “controlling” because a reversal by the Ninth Circuit would materially
affect Canela’s PAGA claim because she has not obtained class certification and thus may not
10
then pursue her representative PAGA claim in this case. In re Cement Antitrust, 673 F.2d at 1026
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
(“[A]ll that must be shown in order for a question [of law] to be ‘controlling’ is that resolution of
the issue on appeal could materially affect the outcome of litigation in the district court.”).
13
14
ii.
Substantial Ground for Difference of Opinion
Costco asserts that a substantial ground for difference of opinion exists as to the Rule 23
15
certification issue because the California Supreme Court in Amalgamated Transit Union, Local
16
1756, AFL–CIO v. Superior Court, 46 Cal.4th 993, 1003 (2009) has characterized PAGA as a
17
procedural statute and several courts within this circuit have required a PAGA plaintiff to obtain
18
19
Rule 23 certification. Opp’n 9–10. Canela counters that recent district court cases have held that
Rule 23 certification is not required. Canela further argues that the Court’s Order addressed Shady
20
Grove Orthopedic Assocs., P.A. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 559 U.S. 393, 406 (2010) which courts that
21
have required Rule 23 certification relied on.
22
The Court is persuaded by Costco’s argument that there is a substantial ground for
23
difference of opinion. As recognized in the Order, the Ninth Circuit has not directly addressed
24
whether a plaintiff is required to obtain Rule 23 certification to pursue a representative PAGA
25
claim and courts within this circuit have split on that issue. Order 13–14. Some courts that
26
required Rule 23 certification reached an opposite conclusion than the Court’s ruling upon
27
considering Shady Grove and Amalgamated Transit. The Court therefore finds that the Rule 23
28
5
1
certification issue presents a disputed and difficult question which the Ninth Circuit has not
2
addressed and satisfies the second § 1292(b) requirement. Couch, 611 F.3d at 633; see also
3
Wishnev, 2016 WL 9223857, at *1 (finding that the second § 1292(b) is met where the Ninth
4
Circuit has not addressed the issue and courts have split on a pure legal question).
5
iii.
Material Advance of the Ultimate Termination of the Litigation
The parties raise the same arguments discussed in relation to the Article III standing issue.
6
7
See Mot. 8–9; Opp’n 3. For the same reasons explained above, the Court finds that Costco has
8
shown that the third §1292(b) requirement is satisfied.
9
iv.
Accordingly, Costco has satisfied its burden to show all three § 1292(b) requirements for
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
Conclusion
certifying the Rule 12 certification issue for an interlocutory appeal.
Costco’s Request for Stay
12
C.
13
Costco requests that this case be stayed until the Ninth Circuit resolves the interlocutory
14
appeal. Mot. 10. Costco contends that a stay will not prejudice Canela because she believes that
15
penalties “continue to run” and that the stay would promote orderly and efficient litigation. Id.
16
While Canela opposes the instant motion, she has not provided any argument against Costco’s
17
request for a stay.
The Court agrees with Costco that the case should be stayed pending resolution by the
18
19
Ninth Circuit. If the parties were required to continue trial preparation for the upcoming July 19,
20
2018 final pretrial conference and September 10, 2018 trial, much of the efficiency and benefit of
21
an interlocutory appeal would be lost. Further, Canela has not identified any prejudice.
In light of the stay, the Court will reset trial to December 10, 2018 and the final pretrial
22
23
conference to November 8, 2018 at 1:30 p.m. upon confirmation by counsel that they are available
24
on those dates.
25
III.
26
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, Costco’s motion for certification of interlocutory appeal of
27
the Court’s Order Denying Defendant’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is hereby
28
GRANTED. The Court certifies the following issues of controlling law as to which there are
6
1
substantial grounds for difference of opinion, the immediate appeal of which will materially
2
advance the ultimate termination of the litigation, thus satisfying the statutory requirements of 28
3
U.S.C. § 1292(b):
4
1.
standing to represent absent aggrieved employees.
5
6
7
8
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
Whether, absent class certification, a PAGA plaintiff in federal court has Article III
2.
Whether a PAGA plaintiff in federal court can represent absent aggrieved
employees without qualifying for class certification under Rule 23.
The Court’s Order Denying Defendant’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is hereby
amended to include this order. Costco shall petition the Ninth Circuit for leave to proceed with
the interlocutory appeal within fourteen (14) days of the date of this order.
The parties shall submit a joint statement on or before June 21, 2018 regarding their
availability for trial on December 10, 2018.
13
14
IT IS SO ORDERED.
15
16
17
18
Dated: June 15, 2018
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7
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?