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)
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?