Vargas v. Central Freight Lines, Inc. et al

Filing 32

ORDER denying 31 Joint Motion to Dismiss Claims Under Private Attorney General Act of 2004. Signed by Judge M. James Lorenz on 4/10/2017. (sjt)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
12

DAVID VARGAS, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff,

13
14
15
16

v.

Case No. 3:16-cv-00507-L-JLB
ORDER DENYING JOINT MOTION
TO DISMISS CLAIMS UNDER THE
PRIVATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL
ACT OF 2004 (“PAGA”)

CENTRAL FREIGHT LINES, INC.,
and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,
Defendants.

Complaint Filed: February 26, 2016

17
18
19

Pending before the Court in this putative class action is Joint Motion to Dismiss

20

Claims Under the Private Attorneys' General Act of 2004 ("PAGA") ("Joint Motion").

21

For the reasons which follow, the Joint Motion is DENIED.

22

The operative Second Amended Class Action Complaint ("SAC") alleges

23

several California Labor Code violations, including failure to provide meal periods,

24

rest breaks, properly itemized wage statements, and wages upon termination. The

25

complaint also includes an unfair competition claim under California Business and

26

Professions Code Section 17200, and a claim for PAGA penalties.

27
28

Plaintiff asserts that the putative class action is filed pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23, and alleges on behalf of "hundreds of employees . . . in nonCase No. 3:16-cv-00507-L-JLB

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

exempt positions" that "[f]or at least four years prior to filing of this action through
the present, Defendants consistently maintained and enforced . . . unlawful practices
and policies" of requiring the class members to work without the meal and rest periods
they were entitled to and without compensating them for the missed meal and rest
periods as required by the California Labor Code. (SAC at 2, 7, 5-6.) Plaintiff
asserted that "the amount of the aggregate claim of all Class Members is likely over
the $5,000,000 threshold of the Class Action Fairness Act." (Id. at 3-4.)
The parties propose to settle the PAGA claim for a total of $7,500, of which
$1,875 would be distributed to the class members, and $5,625 would be distributed to
the California Labor & Workforce Development Agency. The Joint Motion seeks
dismissal of the complaint in its entirety under the proposed settlement's broad release
provision. The proposed judgment would bind not only the named Plaintiff but also
all putative class members, although no class has been certified and no notice of the
settlement to the putative class members is contemplated by the agreement. The
parties seek approval of the settlement pursuant to California Labor Code Section
2699.3(b)(4) "to ensure that the settlement provisions are at least as effective as the
protections or remedies provided by state and federal law or regulation for the alleged
violation."
Based on the information provided in the Joint Motion, and review of the
allegations in the Second Amended Complaint and the proposed settlement
agreement, the settlement does not meet the standard set forth in section 2699.3(b)(4).
The Joint Motion is therefore DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 10, 2017

25
26
27
28
Case No. 3:16-cv-00507-L-JLB

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Case No. 3:16-cv-00507-L-JLB

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1
Case No. 3:16-cv-00507-L-JLB
[PROPOSED] ORDER JOINT MOTION TO DISMISS PAGA CLAIMS