Vargas v. Central Freight Lines, Inc. et al

Filing 35

ORDER denying 33 Amended Motion to Dismiss PAGA Claims. Signed by Judge M. James Lorenz on 6/12/2017. (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

v.

14
15

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

16

Defendants.

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

Complaint Filed: February 26, 2016

17

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

18
19

Dismiss Claims Under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 ("PAGA" and

20

"Revised Joint Motion"). For the reasons which follow, the Revised Joint Motion is

21

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

22
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.
Plaintiff asserts that the putative class action is filed pursuant to Federal Rule of

27
28

Civil Procedure 23, and alleges on behalf of "hundreds of employees . . . in non1

Case No. 3:16-cv-00507-L-JLB

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

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.) Defendant
strenuously denies the allegations.

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

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. They seek dismissal of the
complaint in its entirety as follows: the sixth cause of action for PAGA violations
would be dismissed with prejudice, and the remaining causes of action would be
dismissed with prejudice as to the named Plaintiff only, and without prejudice as to
the putative class. The parties also request the Court to incorporate by reference the
terms of the Settlement Agreement and Release of PAGA Claims ("Agreement").

17
18
19
20

The release provisions of the Agreement do not necessarily support the parties'
representation that, based on the dismissal without prejudice, the putative class
members would remain free to assert their individual claims under California Labor
Code. (See Revised Joint Motion at 1&4.) The Agreement defines Released Claims:

21

any and all claims, whether known or unknown, to recover
wages, damages, penalties, attorney fees, litigation costs,
restitution, or equitable relief, which Plaintiff and/or the
PAGA Settlement Members had, or may claim to have,
against Released Parties, arising out of the facts,
circumstances, and primary rights of the PAGA claim in
the Action.

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2

Case No. 3:16-cv-00507-L-JLB

1

(Agreement ¶ I.L. (emphasis added).) The definition is ambiguous regarding the

2

scope of the release. Although it clearly applies to the putative class members,1 it is

3

unclear whether it applies to their non-PAGA Labor Code claims arising out of the

4

same facts and circumstances as the PAGA claim.

5
6

This ambiguity is not entirely resolved by the separate substantive release
provision, which states:

7

... PAGA Settlement Members ... fully release and forever
discharge the Released Parties from any and all Released
Claims during the PAGA Period. As a result of this
release, the PAGA Settlement Members will be unable to
bring a claim under, or recover in any other claim brought
under [PAGA] for any violations of the Released Claims
that took place during the PAGA Period.

8
9
10
11
12
13

(Agreement ¶VI.A.)
The release provisions do not leave the putative class members with a clear path

14
15

to asserting their non-PAGA claims. They give them a basis for an argument, which

16

they may win or lose, that the parties did not intend to release the class members' non-

17

PAGA claims.

18

The parties seek approval of the settlement pursuant to California Labor Code

19

Section 2699.3(b)(4) "to ensure that the settlement provisions are at least as effective

20

as the protections or remedies provided by state and federal law or regulation for the

21

alleged violation." The release provisions preclude a finding that the settlement

22

complies with section 2699.3(b)(4). The Revised Joint Motion is therefore DENIED.

23
24
25
26
1

The term "PAGA Settlement Members" is defined as "all persons employed in
California by Central Freight Lines, Inc. as Pick Up and Delivery Drivers during the
28 PAGA Period. (Agreement ¶ I.H.; cf. Second Am. Compl. at 9 (describing putative
class).)
27

3

Case No. 3:16-cv-00507-L-JLB

1
2
3

The Revised Joint Motion is DENIED on the alternative ground that it does not
comply with this Court's Standing Orders for Civil Cases relating to Settlement and
Dismissal.

4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 12, 2017

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

Case No. 3:16-cv-00507-L-JLB