Williams v. Lockheed Martin Corporation et al
Filing
119
ORDER denying without prejudice 116 Joint Motion for Discovery Dispute Determination and Staying PAGA-related Discovery. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mitchell D. Dembin on 1/27/12. (Dembin, Mitchell)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
12
JENIFER WILLIAMS, an individual, on
behalf of herself, and on behalf of all persons
similarly situated,
13
CASE NO. 09cv1669 WQH (MDD)
ORDER DENYING JOINT MOTION
FOR DETERMINATION OF
DISCOVERY DISPUTE WITHOUT
PREJUDICE AND STAYING PAGARELATED DISCOVERY
Plaintiff,
vs.
14
15
16
[DOC. NO. 116]
LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION,
Defendant.
17
18
Before the Court is a Joint Motion for Determination of Discovery Dispute filed by the
19
parties on January 20, 2012. (Doc. No. 116). Defendant also filed an additional opposition. (Doc.
20
No. 117). Plaintiff filed this case as a class action and asserted seven claims for relief as follows:
21
(1) unfair competition; (2) failure to pay overtime in violation of state law; (3) failure to provide
22
wages when due; (4) failure to provide meal and rest periods; (5) failure to provide accurate
23
itemized wage statements; (6) failure to pay overtime in violation of the federal Fair Labor
24
Standards Act ("FLSA"); and, (7) for civil penalties pursuant to the California Labor Code Private
25
Attorney General Act (“PAGA”), Cal. Lab.Code §§ 2698 et seq. Plaintiff’s motion to certify the
26
class in this case was denied. (Doc. No. 92).
27
28
At the heart of this discovery dispute is the question whether a plaintiff may maintain a
representative action under PAGA without meeting the class action certification requirements of
-1-
09cv1669 WQH (MDD)
1
Fed.R.Civ.P. 23. The Ninth Circuit has not yet ruled on this issue. The district courts are split.
2
See Ivey v. Apogen Technologies, Inc., 2011 WL 3515936 *2-3 (S.D. Cal. 2011)(collecting cases).
3
In Ivey, a District Judge of this Court ruled that PAGA contravenes federal procedural
4
requirements by providing for recovery to unnamed non-parties and that such a claim must meet
5
the class certification requirements of Rule 23. Id. at 3. On the other hand, another District Judge
6
of this Court, in Rix v. Lockheed Martin Corporation, 09cv2063-MMA (NLS), a case virtually
7
identical to the instant case but involving a different classification of employee, declined to dismiss
8
plaintiff’s PAGA claim for failing to meet the requirements of Rule 23 on the grounds that at that
9
stage of the litigation it was not clear that plaintiff could not seek to litigate a manageable claim.
10
(Doc. No. 77). Since then, as the case information matured, the Magistrate Judge assigned to that
11
case authorized defendant to file a challenge to plaintiff’s PAGA claim. Id. at Doc. No. 85.
12
In the instant case, on January 25, 2012, Defendant moved to strike or dismiss Plaintiff’s
13
PAGA claim. (Doc. No. 118). And, in connection with this discovery dispute, Defendant has
14
asked this Court to stay PAGA-related discovery pending resolution of its motion in the District
15
Court. (Doc. No. 116 at 9-10). The Court finds that the prudent course to take is to stay PAGA-
16
related discovery pending a ruling by the District Court on Defendant’s motion. To do otherwise
17
would result in potentially needless litigation as one side or the other likely would have to file
18
objections to the resulting discovery order.
19
Accordingly, the pending discovery motion is denied without prejudice and all PAGA-
20
related discovery is stayed pending a ruling on Defendant’s motion to strike or dismiss Plaintiff’s
21
PAGA claim.
22
IT IS SO ORDERED:
23
DATED: January 27, 2012
24
25
26
Hon. Mitchell D. Dembin
U.S. Magistrate Judge
27
28
-2-
09cv1669 WQH (MDD)
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?