Dalton et al v. Lee Publications, Inc. et al

Filing 171

ORDER Denying 167 Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration. The Court VACATES the hearing scheduled for November 1, 2013. Signed by Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel on 10/31/2013. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(srm)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 13 YVONNE DALTON, DIAN GARZA, ARMINDA GUZMAN, HARON 14 HUGHEN, ETELVINA SALGADO, HECTOR MIGUEL SALGADO, 15 REFUGIO SANCHEZ and LUISA RAMIREZ FLORES, individually and 16 on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, Case No. 3:08cv1072-GPC-NLS ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION [Dkt. No. 167] 17 18 vs. LEE PUBLICATIONS, INC., a Delaware Corporation, dba NORTH COUNTY TIMES, and DOES 1 20 through 50, 19 21 Defendants. 22 23 Pending before the Court is Defendant’s motion for Reconsideration of the 24 Court’s Order of May 20, 2013. (Dkt. No. 167.) The motion has been fully 25 briefed. (Dkt. Nos. 169, 170.) Pursuant to L.Civ.R. 7.1.d.1, the Court finds the 26 matter suitable for adjudication without oral argument. For the reasons set out 27 below, the Court DENIES Defendant’s motion for reconsideration. 28 08cv1072-GPC-NLS Page 1 1 2 I. Background 3 The Court need not revisit the relevant factual background as it was 4 thoroughly documented in this Court’s May 20, 2013 Order granting in part and 5 denying in part Defendant’s motion for decertification. (See Dkt. No. 166, 6 “Judicial Order.”) In that Order, the Court affirmed certification as to the threshold 7 issue of whether Plaintiffs, newspaper carriers employed by Defendant North 8 County Times (“NCT”), were properly classified as independent contractors. 9 (Judicial Order at 6.) The Court found that individual issues predominated on 10 questions of liability for Plaintiffs’ overtime, minimum wage, and rest break claims 11 and found those claims were not amenable to class treatment. (Id.) Specifically, 12 the Court found the issue of whether each newspaper carrier relied on substitutes or 13 helpers prevented a determination of liability for those claims. (Judicial Order at 14 11-17.) On the claim for unreimbursed expenses, the Court found that the same 15 concerns regarding substitutes and helpers were not relevant to the determination 16 of liability. (Judicial Order at 17-20.) As such, the Court maintained class 17 certification to the claim for unreimbursed expenses. (Id.) Defendants seek 18 reconsideration of this Court’s ruling that Plaintiffs’ claim for unreimbursed 19 expenses satisfies Rule 23 standard for class certification. (Dkt. No. 167.) 20 II. Legal Standard 21 A district court may reconsider an order under either Federal Rule of Civil 22 Procedure 59 (e) (motion to alter or amend a judgment) or Rule 60(b)(relief from 23 judgment). Under the local rules, a party that files a motion for reconsideration of 24 an order must set forth the material facts and circumstances surrounding the 25 motion, including any new or different facts and circumstances that are claimed to 26 exist which did not exist, or were not shown, upon such prior application. L. Civ. 27 R. 7.1.i. In the Ninth Circuit, reconsideration is appropriate if the district court (1) 28 08cv1072-GPC-NLS Page 2 1 is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the 2 initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in 3 controlling law. Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 4 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). Motions for reconsideration offer an "extraordinary 5 remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of judicial 6 resources." Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934, 945 (9th Cir.2003). 7 III. Discussion 8 9 Defendant makes two arguments to support reconsideration: (1) the Court committed clear error by finding individual issues would not predominate for the 10 unreimbursed expenses claim; and (2) the Supreme Court decision in Comcast 11 provides new authority to reconsider the decision. The Court addresses these 12 arguments in turn. 13 To prove a claim for unreimbursed expenses, Plaintiffs must show 14 employment by defendant, expenditures in direct consequence of the discharge of 15 duties, and the expenditures were not reimbursed. (See Judicial Order at 17; Cal 16 Labor Code § 2802). After a review of the Plaintiffs’ evidence, the Court 17 concluded that “[b]ased on common evidence, Plaintiffs can show the essential 18 elements of the claim: that the carrier was an employee, incurred necessary 19 expenses to perform his duties, and Defendant deducted those expenses from the 20 carriers’ earnings.” (Judicial Order at 19.) Defendant argues there must be an 21 individualized inquiry as to “who actually incurred the expenses: were expenses 22 covered by the [carrier] or by some substitute or helper designated by the 23 [carrier]?” (Dkt. No. 67-2 at 3.) Defendant over-extends its’ argument that the 24 substitute or helper issue creates individualized questions to determine liability. 25 The Court found the Defendant’s “carrier sheets” reflected the exact amount of 26 charges the Defendant withheld from the carrier’s earnings. (Judicial Order at 19.) 27 This evidence clearly reflects costs incurred to the carrier, sufficient to show that 28 08cv1072-GPC-NLS Page 3 1 common issues predominate on the question of liability for the unreimbursed 2 expenses claim. Moreover, common proof of withholding expenses shows that the 3 carrier was injured in fact. Accordingly, Defendant has failed to show that the 4 Court’s analysis regarding the unreimbursed expenses claim was made in clear 5 error. 6 Next, Defendant argues the Supreme Court decision Comcast Corp. v. 7 Behrend, 133 S. Ct. 1426 (2013), reflects a change in law that requires this Court 8 to reconsider its’ determination. In response, Plaintiffs point out that Comcast was 9 decided two months prior to the issuance of this Court’s decision and thus is not 10 new law for purposes of reconsideration. (Dkt. No. 269 at 2.) To the extent 11 Comcast, applies, Plaintiffs argue the Supreme Court’s ruling was limited to a 12 narrow damages issue. (Id. at 4-5.) Plaintiffs further argue that Ninth Circuit 13 decision in Leyva v. Medline , 716 F.3d 510 (9th Cir. 2013), supports this Court’s 14 ruling that damages may be determined on a class-wide basis for the unreimbursed 15 expenses claim. (Id. at 5-6.) 16 The Supreme Court decision in Comcast does not alter this Court’s 17 determination that damages for the unreimbursed expenses claim may be 18 ascertained on a class-wide basis. The Comcast Court reversed an order granting 19 class certification on the basis that the plaintiffs’ damages model failed to 20 accurately reflect the one theory of antitrust liability that had been found to meet 21 the Rule 23 standard for certification. Comcast, 133 S. Ct. at 1433-34. Here, proof 22 of both liability and damages will be based on Defendants’ records. Thus, the 23 danger the Supreme Court observed in Comcast that plaintiffs “did not isolate 24 damages resulting from any one theory of [liability],” is not present in this class 25 action. Id. at 1431. For this reason, the Court concludes the Comcast decision is 26 distinguishable and fails to offer any new authority that would alter this Court’s 27 findings. Moreover, to the extent that these questions would require individual 28 08cv1072-GPC-NLS Page 4 1 inquiry, “[t]he amount of damages is invariably an individual question and does 2 not defeat class action treatment.” Leyva v. Medline Indus. Inc., 716 F.3d 510, 3 514 (9th Cir. 2013) (citing Blackie v. Barrack, 524 F.2d 891, 905). 4 5 6 7 IV. Conclusion Based on these reasons, the Court DENIES Defendant’s motion for reconsideration. (Dkt. No. 167.) Accordingly, the Court VACATES the hearing date scheduled for Friday, November 1, 2013. 8 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 11 DATED: October 31, 2013 ________________________________ 12 HONORABLE GONZALO P. CURIEL 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 08cv1072-GPC-NLS Page 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?