Cones v. Parexel International Corporation

Filing 120

ORDER Denying Without Prejudice 83 Plaintiff's Motion for Certification of Class and Collective Action. Signed by Judge M. James Lorenz on 8/23/2018. (lrf)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

Case No.: 3:16-cv-03084-L-BGS

SCHOULEE CONES, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

12
13

v.

14

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT
PREJUDICE PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION
FOR CERTIFICATION OF CLASS
AND COLLECTIVE ACTION

PAREXEL INTERNATIONAL
CORPORATION, et al.,

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Defendants.
Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs Shoulee Cones’ and Dexter Pasis’
(collectively “Plaintiffs”) motion for certification of a class and collective action.
Plaintiffs allege that Defendant Parexel International Corporation (“Parexel”) improperly
classified its three Clinical Research Associate (“CRA”) positions and its three Clinical
Monitoring Associate (“CMA”) positions as exempt. In this case, determination of
exemption status requires an inquiry into whether employees serving as CRAs and CMAs
spend more than half of their time performing exempt tasks, including tasks that require
the exercise of discretion and judgment. Wage Order 4-2001(1)(B)(1)(e). Plaintiffs
assert this can be done on a class / collective action basis through common proof.
In its Opposition, Parexel submits numerous declarations from CRA and CMA
employees suggesting that (1) these employees do exercise discretion and judgment in
1
3:16-cv-03084-L-BGS

1

performing their duties and (2) the amount of time they spend on tasks requiring the

2

exercise of discretion and judgment varies depending upon an employee’s job

3

classification and the specific work the employee is performing in a given week. Such

4

declaration testimony (“Declarations”) seem highly relevant to the present motion

5

because they tend to suggest that a class / collective action may be inappropriate if an

6

individualized inquiry into each employee is necessary to determine exemption status.

7

Vinole v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 571 F.3d 935, 947 (9th Cir. 2009).

8

In their Reply, Plaintiffs contend that the Court should strike the Declarations

9

under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(C)(1) because Parexel allegedly did not timely

10

disclose the names of these declarants and thus denied Plaintiffs’ counsel the opportunity

11

to depose them. (Reply [Doc. 118] 13–15.) Because this discovery dispute could be

12

outcome determinative, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ motion for class / collective action

13

certification without prejudice. Before refiling, Plaintiffs shall file their motion to strike

14

before Magistrate Judge Bernard G. Skomal.

15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16

Dated: August 23, 2018

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
3:16-cv-03084-L-BGS