Owino et al v. CoreCivic, Inc.

Filing 179

ORDER: (1) Denying without prejudice Plaintiff's' motion for partial summary judgment, (2) Denying Defendant's motion for judgement on the pleadings, (3) Denying as moot Plaintiffs' motion to exclude, and (4) Granting in part and denying in part Plaintiffs' motion for class certification (ECF Nos. 97 , 117 , 128 . 155 ). Signed by Judge Janis L. Sammartino on 4/01/2020. (jpp)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

SYLVESTER OWINO and JONATHAN
GOMEZ, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated,

13
14
15
16

v.
CORECIVIC, INC., a Maryland
corporation,
Defendant.
CORECIVIC, INC.,

19
20

ORDER: (1) DENYING WITHOUT
PREJUDICE PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION
FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY
JUDGMENT, (2) DENYING
DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR
JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS,
(3) DENYING AS MOOT
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO
EXCLUDE, AND (4) GRANTING IN
PART AND DENYING IN PART
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR CLASS
CERTIFICATION

Plaintiffs,

17
18

Case No.: 17-CV-1112 JLS (NLS)

Counter-Claimant,
v.

21
22
23
24

(ECF Nos. 97, 117, 128, 155)
SYLVESTER OWINO and JONATHAN
GOMEZ, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated,
Counter-Defendants.

25
26

Presently before the Court are Plaintiffs and Counter-Defendants Sylvester Owino

27

and Jonathan Gomez’s Motion for Class Certification (“Cert. Mot.,” ECF No. 84), Motion

28

for Partial Summary Judgment (“MPSJ,” ECF No. 97), and Motion to Exclude Evidence
1
17-CV-1112 JLS (NLS)

1

from Class Certification Decision (“Mot. to Exclude,” ECF No. 128), as well as Defendant

2

and Cross-Claimant CoreCivic, Inc.’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (“MJP,” ECF

3

No. 117). The Court held a hearing on December 19, 2019. See ECF Nos. 154, 159 (“Tr.”).

4

Having carefully considered the Parties’ arguments, the evidence, and the law, the Court

5

DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment

6

(ECF No. 97), DENIES Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (ECF No.

7

117), DENIES AS MOOT Plaintiffs’ Motion to Exclude (ECF No. 128), and GRANTS

8

IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification (ECF No.

9

84), as follows.

10
11

BACKGROUND
I.

Factual Background 1

12

Plaintiffs are civil immigration detainees who are involuntary confined at

13

Defendant’s detention facilities under the custody of Immigration and Customs

14

Enforcement (“ICE”). See Pls.’ Stmt. of Facts, ECF Nos. 97-2, 99-1 (sealed), ¶¶ 1, 37, 41.

15

During their period of detention, Plaintiffs and other ICE detainees performed work for

16

Defendant through a Voluntary Work Program (“VWP”). Id. Defendant paid those

17

participating in the VWP between $0.75 and $1.50 per day, id. ¶ 18, which is less than

18

California’s minimum wage. See id. ¶ 35. Defendant also coerced detainees to perform

19

additional, uncompensated work under threat of punishment. See id. ¶¶ 11, 13, 16.

20

II.

Procedural Background

21

Plaintiffs filed this putative class action on May 1, 2017, alleging seven causes of

22

action for (1) forced labor and violation of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act

23

(“TVPA”), 18 U.S.C. §§ 1589 et seq.; (2) forced labor and violation of the California

24
25
26
27
28

1

Plaintiffs request the Court to exclude “attachment B to Exhibit 1, and all attachments to Exhibits 4, 6,
7, 8, 11, and 13” filed in support of Defendant’s opposition to their Motion for Class Certification “on the
grounds that they were not timely produced” by the March 15, 2019 deadline to complete class discovery
imposed by Magistrate Judge Nita L. Stormes. See ECF No. 128-1 at 1. Because the Court does not rely
on any of the attachments Plaintiffs have challenged in ruling on Plaintiffs’ Certification Motion, the Court
DENIES AS MOOT Plaintiffs’ Motion to Exclude (ECF No. 128).
2
17-CV-1112 JLS (NLS)

1

TVPA, Cal. Civ. Code § 52.5; (3) unfair competition, Cal. Bus & Prof. Code §§ 17200 et

2

seq.; (4) violations of the California Labor Code; (5) violation of California Industrial

3

Welfare Commission (“IWC”) Orders; (6) negligence; and (7) unjust enrichment. See

4

generally ECF No. 1. Plaintiffs alleged that the action was being brought on behalf of three

5

classes: (1) a “Nationwide Forced Labor Class” comprised of “[a]ll civil immigration

6

detainees who performed Forced Labor uncompensated work for CoreCivic at any

7

Detention Facility owned or operated by it between November 2, 2004[,] to the applicable

8

opt-out date, inclusive”; (2) a “California Forced Labor Class” comprised of “[a]ll civil

9

immigration detainees who performed Forced Labor uncompensated work for CoreCivic

10

at any Detention Facility located in California owned or operated by it at [any] time during

11

the period from November 2, 2004[,] to the applicable op-out date, inclusive”; and (3) a

12

“California Labor Law Class” comprised of “[a]ll civil immigration detainees who

13

performed Dollar-A-Day Work for CoreCivic and were paid one dollar ($1) per day at any

14

Detention Facility located in California owned or operated by it at any time between

15

November 2, 2004[,] to the applicable op-out date, inclusive.” Id. ¶ 30.

16

On August 11, 2017, Defendant moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim under

17

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), see generally ECF No. 18, a motion that the

18

Court later granted in part and denied in part. See generally ECF No. 38. Defendant then

19

answered Plaintiffs’ complaint, “admit[ting] that jurisdiction is proper in this Court.” See

20

ECF No. 44 ¶¶ 2–3, 5. Although Defendant raised several affirmative defenses, it did not

21

raise any jurisdictional defenses. See id. at 21–27.

22

On September 11, 2018, Plaintiffs moved to file an amended complaint “for the

23

purpose of adding a claim for violations of the Private Attorney General Act (“PAGA”),

24

Cal. Labor Code §§ 2698, et seq.,” ECF No. 64, a request Defendant did not oppose. See

25

ECF No. 65. The Court therefore granted Plaintiffs’ motion, see ECF No. 66, and Plaintiffs

26

filed their First Amended Complaint on October 12, 2018, see generally ECF No. 67

27

(“FAC”), adding a new cause of action for violation of PAGA “[o]n [b]ehalf of Plaintiffs

28

[i]ndividually and the Class.” See id. ¶¶ 129–38. Again, Plaintiffs alleged three classes: a
3
17-CV-1112 JLS (NLS)

1

Nationwide Forced Labor Class, a California Forced Labor Class, and a California Labor

2

Law Class. See id. ¶ 30.

3

Defendant answered Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint on October 26, 2018. See

4

generally ECF No. 70. For the first time, Defendant “admit[ted] only that this Court has

5

specific personal jurisdiction over CoreCivic as to the claims arising out of CoreCivic’s

6

California facilities” and “denie[d] that this Court has general personal jurisdiction over

7

CoreCivic as to claims arising out of CoreCivic’s non-California facilities.” Id. ¶ 5; see

8

also id. ¶ 31 (“CoreCivic further affirmatively alleges that this Court lacks personal

9

jurisdiction over CoreCivic as to Plaintiffs’ claims arising out of CoreCivic’s non-

10

California facilities.”). CoreCivic also raised a new affirmative defense in its answer to

11

Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint: “As a separate defense, and in the alternative,

12

CoreCivic alleges that this Court lacks personal jurisdiction over CoreCivic as to Plaintiffs’

13

claims arising out of Plaintiffs’ non-California facilities.” Id. at 22 ¶ 8.

14

On April 15, 2019, Plaintiffs filed their Certification Motion, seeking to certify five

15

classes, see generally ECF No. 84, and Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Partial Summary

16

Judgment, seeking summary adjudication as to whether Plaintiffs are employees under

17

California law and on Plaintiffs’ claims for violation of California Labor Code sections

18

226 and 1194, on June 5, 2019. See generally ECF No. 97. On July 11, 2019, Defendant

19

filed its Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, “mov[ing] this Court, pursuant to Fed. R.

20

Civ. P. 12(c) to grant judgment on the pleadings and dismiss all putative class claims that

21

arose outside of California for lack of personal jurisdiction.” See ECF No. 117 at 2.

22

Plaintiffs moved to exclude certain evidence Defendant introduced in its opposition to their

23

Certification Motion on August 1, 2019, “on the grounds that Defendant violated this

24

Court’s scheduling order regarding class discovery, as well as two of the Court’s discovery

25

orders,” by producing documents “to Plaintiffs for the first time months after the close of

26

class discovery.” See ECF No. 128 at 2.

27

///

28

///
4
17-CV-1112 JLS (NLS)

1
2

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
I.

Legal Standard

3

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a), a party may move for summary

4

judgment as to a claim or defense or part of a claim or defense. Summary judgment, or

5

partial summary judgment, is appropriate where the Court is satisfied that there is “no

6

genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter

7

of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). Material

8

facts are those that may affect the outcome of the case. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,

9

477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). A genuine dispute of material fact exists only if “the evidence

10

is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Id. When

11

the Court considers the evidence presented by the parties, “[t]he evidence of the non-

12

movant is to be believed, and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in his favor.” Id. at

13

255.

14

The initial burden of establishing the absence of a genuine issue of material fact falls

15

on the moving party. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323. The moving party may meet this burden

16

by identifying the “portions of ‘the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and

17

admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any,’” that show an absence of dispute

18

regarding a material fact. Id. When a plaintiff seeks summary judgment as to an element

19

for which it bears the burden of proof, “it must come forward with evidence which would

20

entitle it to a directed verdict if the evidence went uncontroverted at trial.” C.A.R. Transp.

21

Brokerage Co. v. Darden Rests., Inc., 213 F.3d 474, 480 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting Houghton

22

v. South, 965 F.2d 1532, 1536 (9th Cir. 1992)).

23

Once the moving party satisfies this initial burden, the nonmoving party must

24

identify specific facts showing that there is a genuine dispute for trial. Celotex, 477 U.S.

25

at 324. This requires “more than simply show[ing] that there is some metaphysical doubt

26

as to the material facts.” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574,

27

586 (1986). Rather, to survive summary judgment, the nonmoving party must “by her own

28

affidavits, or by the ‘depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file,’
5
17-CV-1112 JLS (NLS)

1

designate ‘specific facts’” that would allow a reasonable fact finder to return a verdict for

2

the non-moving party. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324; Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248. The non-

3

moving party cannot oppose a properly supported summary judgment motion by “rest[ing]

4

on mere allegations or denials of his pleadings.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 256.

5

II.

Analysis

6

Plaintiffs seek summary adjudication as to (1) their status as “employees” under

7

California law, and (2) Defendant’s liability to them under California Labor Code sections

8

226 and 1194 and Industrial Welfare Commission (“IWC”) Wage Order No. 5-2001. See

9

ECF No. 97 at 2. Defendant contends that Plaintiffs’ motion must be denied because the

10

“one-way intervention rule” precludes Plaintiffs from seeking summary judgment before

11

class certification. 2

12

intervention’ rule is a procedural red herring.” ECF No. 141 at 9.

ECF No. 133 at 3–4.

Plaintiffs respond that “the ‘one-way

13

The one-way intervention rule is intended “to protect defendants from unfair ‘one-

14

way intervention,’ where the members of a class not yet certified can wait for the court’s

15

ruling on summary judgment and either opt in to a favorable ruling or avoid being bound

16

by an unfavorable one.” Villa v. San Francisco Forty-Niners, Ltd., 104 F. Supp. 3d 1017,

17

1021 (N.D. Cal. 2015) (citing Am. Pipe & Const. Co. v. Utah, 414 U.S. 538, 547 (1974)).

18

The one-way intervention rule is supported by “[t]he purpose of Rule 23(c)(2)[, which] is

19

to ensure that the plaintiff class receives notice of the action well before the merits of the

20

case are adjudicated.” Schwarzschild v. Tse, 69 F.3d 293, 295 (9th Cir. 1995). This

21

purpose is the result of the “1966 amendments [that] were designed, in part, specifically to

22

mend this perceived defect in the former Rule and to assure that members of the class

23

would be identified before trial on the merits and would be bound by all subsequent orders

24

and judgments.” Am. Pipe & Const. Co., 414 U.S. at 547.

25
26
27
28

2

Defendant also asks the Court to deny or defer ruling on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment until Defendant has had the opportunity to conduct “[e]ssential [m]erits [d]iscovery.” ECF No.
133 at 6–10. Although the Court tends to agree with Plaintiffs that Defendant has not made the requisite
showing under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d), see ECF No. 141 at 2–8, the Court need not reach
the issue because the one-way intervention rule is dispositive.
6
17-CV-1112 JLS (NLS)

1

While the one-way intervention rule typically precludes a court from ruling on a

2

merits-based motion before the class is certified and notified, see Schwarzschild, 69 F.3d

3

at 296, there is an exception “when early resolution of a motion for summary judgment

4

seems likely to protect both the parties and the court from needless and costly further

5

litigation.” Wright v. Schock, 742 F.2d 541, 544 (9th Cir. 1984). However, “[d]efendants

6

must consent to this procedure, as the judgment against the individual plaintiff ‘will not be

7

res judicata as to other individual plaintiffs or other members of any class that may be

8

certified.’” Schwarz v. Meinberg, No. CV1300356BROPLAX, 2016 WL 9115353, at *2

9

(C.D. Cal. July 15, 2016) (quoting Wright, 742 F.2d at 544); see also Flo & Eddie, Inc. v.

10

Sirius XM Radio, Inc., No. 13-5693 PSG (RZX), 2015 WL 4476932, at *4 (C.D. Cal. May

11

27, 2015).

12

The Court concludes that the one-way intervention rule applies here. The class was

13

neither certified nor notified prior to Plaintiffs’ filing of their Motion for Partial Summary

14

Judgment; consequently, a ruling on the merits is premature because it has the potential to

15

leave Defendant open to “being pecked to death” by plaintiffs seeking an alternative

16

outcome. See Fireside Bank v. Super. Ct., 40 Cal. 4th 1069, 1078 (2007) (quoting Premier

17

Elec. Constr. Co. v. Nat’l Elec. Contractors Ass’n, Inc., 814 F.2d 358, 363 (7th Cir. 1987)).

18

Further, the exception does not apply here because Defendant did not consent to a pre-

19

certification ruling on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. See ECF No. 133

20

at 4 (“CoreCivic has not consented—and does not consent—to the adjudication of these

21

merits issues before a class-certification ruling.”) (citing Gessele v. Jack in the Box, Inc.,

22

No. 3:10-cv-960-ST, 2012 WL 3686274, at *3 (D. Or. Aug. 24, 2012)).

23

Because “there is no reason the briefing on the MPSJ could not have been completed

24

already as scheduled,” Plaintiffs suggest that the Court defer ruling on its Motion, without

25

allowing Defendant a second opportunity to brief the merits, until after the class

26

certification procedures have been completed. ECF No. 141 at 9–10. But Plaintiffs do not

27

cite, and the Court has not found, any authority supporting Plaintiffs’ request. See Gomez

28

v. Rossi Concrete Inc., No. 08CV1442 BTM CAB, 2011 WL 666888, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Feb.
7
17-CV-1112 JLS (NLS)

1

17, 2011) (denying pre-certification motion for summary judgement without prejudice);

2

see also Villa, 104 F. Supp. 3d at 1023 (same). Further, Defendant should not be penalized

3

for asserting its rights under the one-intervention rule.

4

Consequently, the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiffs’ Motion for

5

Partial Summary Judgment. Should Plaintiffs elect to renew their Motion for Partial

6

Summary Judgment following the Court’s resolution of their Motion for Class

7

Certification, Defendant must either respond on the merits or “identify specific facts to be

8

obtained in discovery that [a]re essential to oppose summary judgment.” See Leonard v.

9

Baker, 714 F. App’x 718, 719 (9th Cir. 2018) (citing Family Home & Fin. Ctr., Inc. v. Fed.

10

Home Loan Mortg. Corp., 525 F.3d 822, 827 (9th Cir. 2008)).

11
12

DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
I.

Legal Standard

13

Any party may move for judgment on the pleadings “[a]fter the pleadings are

14

closed—but early enough not to delay trial.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c). A motion for judgment

15

on the pleadings attacks the legal sufficiency of the claims alleged in the complaint. See

16

Patel v. Contemporary Classics of Beverly Hills, 259 F.3d 123, 126 (2d Cir. 2001). The

17

Court must construe “all material allegations of the non-moving party as contained in the

18

pleadings as true, and [construe] the pleadings in the light most favorable to the [non-

19

moving] party.” Doyle v. Raley’s Inc., 158 F.3d 1012, 1014 (9th Cir. 1998). “Judgment

20

on the pleadings is proper when the moving party clearly establishes on the face of the

21

pleadings that no material issue of fact remains to be resolved and that it is entitled to

22

judgment as a matter of law.” Hal Roach Studios, Inc. v. Richard Feiner & Co., Inc., 896

23

F.2d 1542, 1550 (9th Cir. 1990). “Analysis under Rule 12(c) is ‘substantially identical’ to

24

analysis under Rule 12(b)(6) because, under both rules, ‘a court must determine whether

25

the facts alleged in the complaint, taken as true, entitle the plaintiff to a legal remedy.’”

26

Chavez v. United States, 683 F.3d 1102, 1108 (9th Cir. 2012).

27

///

28

///
8
17-CV-1112 JLS (NLS)

1

II.

Analysis

2

Defendant requests that the Court “grant judgment on the pleadings and dismiss all

3

putative class claims that arose outside of California for lack of personal jurisdiction.” ECF

4

No. 117 at 2; see also ECF No. 117-1 at 1, 9. Defendant contends that “courts have

5

approved such jurisdictional challenges at the class-certification stage.” ECF No. 117-1 at

6

1 (citing Gasser v. Kiss My Face, LLC, No. 17-CV-01675-JSC, 2018 WL 4538729, at *2

7

(N.D. Cal. Sept. 21, 2018)).

8

Plaintiffs urge the Court to “deny Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings

9

. . . because it is a procedurally improper, belated personal jurisdiction challenge Defendant

10

should have raised two years ago when litigation began, and which Defendant waived due

11

to its failure to do so.” ECF No. 134 at 1. Specifically, Plaintiffs argue that “Defendant

12

waived its challenge by failing to raise it in the prior Rule 12(b) motion, and through its

13

extensive litigation conduct.” Id. at 2.

14

Defendant responds that it did not waive its personal jurisdiction defense because

15

“personal jurisdiction is waived only if it was both available and omitted from the earlier

16

motion.” ECF No. 140 at 1 (emphasis in original). Defendant contends that the personal

17

jurisdiction defense was not available to it at the time it filed its Rule 12(b) motion to

18

dismiss because “CoreCivic had no good faith basis to challenge personal jurisdiction over

19

the non-plaintiff, putative class members’ claims” prior to class certification, see id.,

20

rendering “any personal jurisdiction challenge to the putative class members’ claims . . .

21

premature and procedurally improper at the motion-to-dismiss stage.” Id. at 2.

22

The Court concludes that Defendant has waived any challenge to the Court’s

23

personal jurisdiction. “‘Lack of personal jurisdiction’ is a ‘defense to a claim for relief’

24

that the Federal Rules expressly recognize.” McCurley v. Royal Seas Cruises, Inc., 331

25

F.R.D. 142, 164 (S.D. Cal. 2019) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2)). “Challenges to alleged

26

defects in a district court’s personal jurisdiction are expressly waived unless a defendant

27

timely asserts the defense in a motion to dismiss or in a responsive pleading.” Id. (citing

28

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(1); Glater v. Eli Lilly & Co., 712 F.2d 735, 738 (1983); Williams v.
9
17-CV-1112 JLS (NLS)

1

Life Sav. & Loan, 802 F.2d 1200, 1202 (10th Cir. 1986); Braver v. Northstar Alarm Servs.,

2

329 F.R.D. 320 (W.D. Okla. 2018)). “An exception to this rule exists when a defense or

3

objection was unavailable at the time the defendant filed its earlier motion or responsive

4

pleading.” Id. (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(g)(2)). “A defense is considered ‘available’ unless

5

its legal basis did not exist at the time of the answer or earlier pre-answer motion.” Id. at

6

164–65 (citing Gilmore v. Palestinian Interim Self-Gov’t Auth., 843 F.3d 958, 964 (D.C.

7

Cir. 2016); Tinn v. EMM Labs, Inc., No. 07-cv-00963-AC, 2008 WL 3861889, at *3 (D.

8

Or. Aug. 19, 2008)).

9

Here, “[Defendant] could have asserted a personal jurisdiction challenge to

10

Plaintiffs’ initial May . . . 2017 . . . complaint[], . . . which alleged [a] nationwide T[V]PA

11

class[].” See id. at 165. Bristol-Myers Squibb was decided on June 19, 2017, and

12

Defendant did not respond to Plaintiffs’ initial Complaint until August 11, 2017, see ECF

13

No. 18, or answer Plaintiff’s initial Complaint until June 8, 2018. See ECF No. 44.

14

Whether or not a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) would

15

have been premature, see ECF No. 171 at 2–4 (citing Molock v. Whole Foods Mktg. Grp.,

16

Inc., No. 187162, 2020 WL 1146733, at *2–3 (D.D.C. Mar. 10, 2020)), the legal basis for

17

the defense was known to the Defendant when it responded to Plaintiff’s initial Complaint,

18

thereby rendered the personal jurisdiction defense available.

19

“[Defendant]’s failure to assert personal jurisdiction in its first responsive pleadings to

20

[Plaintiffs’] original complaint[] constitutes a waiver of such a defense.” See McCurley,

21

331 F.R.D. at 165; see also Mussat v. Enclarity, Inc., 362 F. Supp. 3d 468, 470 (N.D. Ill.

22

2019) (denying Rule 12(c) motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction in putative

23

nationwide class action on grounds that defense was waived under Rules 12(g)(2) and

24

12(h)). The Court therefore DENIES Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.

25

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

26

I.

Consequently,

Legal Standard

27

Motions for class certification proceed under Rule 23(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil

28

Procedure. Rule 23(a) provides four prerequisites to a class action: (1) the class is so
10
17-CV-1112 JLS (NLS)

1

numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable (“numerosity”), (2) there are

2

questions of law or fact common to the class (“commonality”), (3) the claims or defenses

3

of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class (“typicality”),

4

and (4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class

5

(“adequate representation”). Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a).

6

A proposed class must also satisfy one of the subdivisions of Rule 23(b). Here,

7

Plaintiffs seek to proceed under Rule 23(b)(3), which requires that “the court find[] that

8

the [common questions] predominate over any questions affecting only individual

9

members [‘predominance’], and that a class action is superior to other available methods

10

for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy [‘superiority’].” The relevant factors

11

in this inquiry include the class members’ interest in individually controlling the litigation,

12

other litigation already commenced, the desirability (or not) of consolidating the litigation

13

in this forum, and manageability. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3)(A)–(D).

14

“In determining the propriety of a class action, the question is not whether the

15

plaintiff or plaintiffs have stated a cause of action or will prevail on the merits, but rather

16

whether the requirements of Rule 23 are met.” Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, 417 U.S.

17

156, 178 (1974) (internal quotations omitted). “Rule 23 does not set forth a mere pleading

18

standard.” Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338, 350 (2011). Rather, “[a] party

19

seeking class certification must affirmatively demonstrate his compliance with the Rule—

20

that is, he must be prepared to prove that there are in fact sufficiently numerous parties,

21

common questions of law or fact, etc.” Id. The court is “at liberty to consider evidence

22

which goes to the requirements of Rule 23 even though the evidence may also relate to the

23

underlying merits of the case.” Hanon v. Dataprods. Corp., 976 F.2d 497, 509 (9th Cir.

24

1992). A weighing of competing evidence, however, is inappropriate at this stage of the

25

litigation. Staton v. Boeing Co., 327 F.3d 938, 954 (9th Cir. 2003).

26

II.

27
28

Analysis
Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3), Plaintiffs seek to

certify the following five classes:
11
17-CV-1112 JLS (NLS)

1

1.

The California Labor Law Class, comprised of “[a]ll ICE detainees who

2

(i) were detained at a CoreCivic facility located in California between May 31, 2013 and

3

the present, and (ii) worked through CoreCivic’s [VWP] during their period of detention

4

in California,” ECF No. 84 at 1; 3

5

2.

The California Forced Labor Class, comprised of “[a]ll ICE detainees who

6

(i) were detained at a CoreCivic facility located in California between January 1, 2006 and

7

the present, (ii) cleaned areas of the facilities above and beyond the personal housekeeping

8

tasks enumerated in ICE’s Performance Based National Detention Standards 2011 (the

9

“ICE PBNDS”), and (iii) performed such work under threat of discipline irrespective of

10

whether the work was paid or unpaid,” id.;

11

3.

The California Basic Necessities Class, comprised of “[a]ll ICE detainees who

12

(i) were detained at a CoreCivic facility located in California between January 1, 2006 and

13

the present, (ii) worked through CoreCivic’s VWP, and (iii) purchased basic living

14

necessities through CoreCivic’s commissary during their period of detention in

15

California,” id. at 1–2;

16

4.

The National Forced Labor Class, comprised of “[a]ll ICE detainees who

17

(i) were detained at a CoreCivic facility between December 23, 2008 and the present,

18

(ii) cleaned areas of the facilities above and beyond the personal housekeeping tasks

19

enumerated in the ICE PBNDS, and (iii) performed such work under threat of discipline

20

irrespective of whether the work was paid or unpaid,” id. at 2; and

21

5.

The National Basic Necessities Class, comprised of “[a]ll ICE detainees who

22

(i) were detained at a CoreCivic facility between December 23, 2008 to the present,

23

(ii) worked through CoreCivic’s VWP, and (iii) purchased basic living necessities through

24

CoreCivic’s commissary during their period of detention.” Id.

25
26
3

27
28

Defendant contends that “Plaintiffs exclude Count Nine (Failure to Pay Compensation Upon
Termination/Waiting Time Penalties, Cal. Labor Code §§ 201–203) from the list of claims that this Class
is pursuing,” see ECF No. 118 at 12 (citing ECF No. 84-1 at 17); however, Plaintiffs explicitly include
Count Nine in their Notice of Motion, see ECF No. 84 at 1.
12
17-CV-1112 JLS (NLS)

1

A.

2

Before addressing the Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(3) factors, the Court addresses

3

Defendant’s arguments concerning the certification of the Basic Necessities Classes,

4

Plaintiffs’ standing to pursue prospective equitable relief, and the ascertainability of the

5

proposed classes.

6

Preliminary Considerations

1.

The Basic Necessities Classes

7

As an initial matter, Defendant contends that “[t]he Court cannot certify the Basic

8

Necessities Classes because it ‘is bound to class definitions provided in the complaint and,

9

absent an amended complaint, will not consider certification beyond it.’” ECF No. 118 at

10

13 (citing Reyes v. Educ. Credit Mgmt. Corp., 322 F.R.D. 552, 559 (S.D. Cal. 2017)

11

(quoting Costelo v. Chertoff, 258 F.R.D. 600, 605 (C.D. Cal. 2009)), vacated & remanded

12

on other grounds, 773 Fed. App’x 989 (9th Cir. 2019)); Bee, Denning, Inc. v. Capital All.

13

Grp., 310 F.R.D. 614, 621 (S.D. Cal. 2015)). Defendant notes that, “[a]lthough a Court is

14

not precluded from considering a new class ‘that is narrower than the class definition

15

originally proposed,’ . . . Plaintiffs’ Basic Necessities Classes involve an entirely different

16

theory of liability, based on factual allegations that simply do not exist in the Complaint.”

17

Id. at 13–14 (quoting Bee, Denning, 310 F.R.D. at 621) (emphasis in original).

18

Plaintiffs counter that “the CA and National Basic Necessities Classes assert the

19

same theories of liability that Plaintiffs alleged in the FAC—namely, violations of the CA

20

TVPA, Federal TVPA, and UCL, as well as unjust enrichment and negligence.” ECF No.

21

127 at 6. “Further, the Basic Necessities Classes are also defined more narrowly than the

22

Nationwide and California Forced Labor Classes alleged in the FAC, which refer to ‘[a]ll

23

civil immigration detainees who performed Forced Labor’ generally, without any limiting

24

principle,” whereas “the Basic Necessities Classes tether the definition of ‘Forced Labor’

25

to ICE detainees that worked through CoreCivic’s VWP and purchased basic living

26

necessities at the commissary.” Id. at 6–7 (quoting FAC ¶ 30; ECF No. 84 at 1–2).

27

“Generally, a plaintiff may only seek to certify a class as defined in a complaint—

28

courts will not certify classes different from, or broader than, a class alleged in the
13
17-CV-1112 JLS (NLS)

1

complaint without plaintiff moving to amend the complaint.” Richie v. Blue Shield of Cal.,

2

No. C-13-2693 EMC, 2014 WL 6982943, at *13 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 9, 2014) (citing Savanna

3

Grp., Inc. v. Trynex, Inc., No. 10-cv-7995, 2013 WL 66181, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 4, 2013);

4

Costelo, 258 F.R.D. at 604–05). Despite Plaintiffs’ assertion that the Basic Necessities

5

Classes are “defined more narrowly” than the Forced Labor Classes alleged in their First

6

Amended Complaint, the Court concludes that those classes are new classes hinging on

7

allegations not appearing in the First Amended Complaint.

8

The First Amended Complaint’s only reference to the commissary is that “Plaintiffs

9

and detainees are/were only allowed to spend their $1 per day at the CoreCivic ‘company

10

store’ or commissary.” FAC ¶ 15. This is entirely different than alleging that Plaintiffs

11

had to spend their earnings at the commissary on basic necessities that were not provided

12

by Defendant. Indeed, the only mention of “basic necessities” is made in Defendant’s

13

Counter-Claim. See, e.g., ECF No. 70 at 31 ¶ 13 (“CoreCivic provides basic necessities to

14

all detainees housed in its California facilities, including but not limited to housing, food,

15

clothing, and recreation.”); id. at 33 ¶ 23 (same); id. at 35 ¶ 33 (“The work performed by

16

these detainees is performed for reasons other than compensation, as detainees

17

participating in the [VWP] do not participate in commerce and do not depend on the wages

18

they earn for basic necessities such as, for example, housing, food, clothing, and recreation,

19

while detained, as those necessities are provided to them at taxpayer expense.”); id. at

20

Prayer ¶ D (requesting “an order awarding CoreCivic all costs and expenses incurred in

21

providing basic necessities to Counter-Defendants and the putative class members,

22

including but not limited to housing, food, clothing, and recreation”).

23

If Plaintiffs uncovered the “basic necessities” theory of liability during discovery,

24

they should have diligently sought leave to amend their First Amended Complaint to assert

25

it. See, e.g., Stuart v. Radioshack Corp., No. C-07-4499 EMC, 2009 WL 281941, at *2

26

(N.D. Cal. Feb. 5, 2009) (granting motion for leave to file second amended complaint “to

27

broaden the scope of the class and then obtain certification of the broader class”); see also

28

Ortiz v. McNeil-PPC, Inc., No. 07CV678-MMA(CAB), 2009 WL 1322962, at *2 (S.D.
14
17-CV-1112 JLS (NLS)

1

Cal. May 8, 2009) (denying motion to file amended complaint to obtain class certification

2

where the “[p]laintiffs failed to exercise the requisite diligence in seeking to amend the

3

consolidated complaint”). But this Plaintiffs failed to do. In her July 27, 2018 Scheduling

4

Order, Magistrate Judge Stormes imposed a deadline of October 26, 2018, by which to file

5

“[a]ny motion to join other parties, to amend the pleadings, or to file additional pleadings.”

6

ECF No. 57 ¶ 3. On September 11, 2018, Plaintiffs sought leave to file the operative First

7

Amended Complaint, see ECF No. 64, which does not mention the provision of—let alone

8

the alleged forced purchase of—basic necessities. See generally FAC. Plaintiffs did not

9

seek leave to modify the Scheduling Order to add these allegations either before or after

10

filing the instant Motion for Class Certification, and they do not even attempt to make a

11

showing of good cause for allowing them to amend their class allegations at this stage. See

12

Ortiz, 2009 WL 1322962, at *2 (setting forth good cause standard under Rule 16(b) for

13

modification of scheduling order and concluding that the plaintiffs failed to exercise

14

diligence or make a showing of good cause); see also infra note 5.

15

Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification as to the

16

California and Nationwide Basic Necessities Classes, which were neither included in nor

17

narrower than the classes alleged in Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint. See, e.g., Davis

18

v. AT&T Corp., No. 15CV2342-DMS (DHB), 2017 WL 1155350, at *3–4 (S.D. Cal. Mar.

19

28, 2017) (declining to certify class where the “proposed class is not simply a narrower

20

version of that proposed in the Complaints” but rather “is an entirely different class”

21

because “the nature of the modification to the class definition (a completely different class),

22

whether additional discovery is required (yes) and whether Defendant will be prejudiced

23

(yes), weigh in favor of declining to address the amended class in this case”); Romero v.

24

Alta-Dena Certified Dairy, LLC, No. CV13-04846 R (FFMX), 2014 WL 12479370, at *1

25

(C.D. Cal. Jan. 30, 2014) (“Plaintiff’s proposed ‘Mandatory Uniform’ and ‘Auto Meal

26

Deduction’ classes encompass allegations and class definitions that are not found in the

27

operative first amended complaint. Certification of those classes is denied on that basis.”)

28

(citing Johnson v. Harley-Davidson Motor Co. Grp., 285 F.R.D. 573, 577 n.2 (E.D. Cal.
15
17-CV-1112 JLS (NLS)

1

2012); Costelo, 258 F.R.D. at 604–05); see also Hoffman v. Blattner Energy, Inc., 315

2

F.R.D. 324, 335 (C.D. Cal. 2016) (denying motion to certify class where the plaintiff had

3

failed to allege the underlying claim in his operative complaint and denying leave to amend

4

the complaint to add such a claim).

5

2.

Standing

6

In the context of a putative class action, the plaintiff bears the burden of showing

7

that at least one named plaintiff meets the requirements for Article III standing as to each

8

form of relief sought. See Ellis v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 657 F.3d 970, 978 (9th Cir.

9

2011) (citing Bates v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 511 F.3d 974, 985 (9th Cir. 2007)).

10

Here, it is undisputed that Plaintiffs have Article III standing for their claims for

11

monetary damages, restitution, interest, penalties, punitive damages, and fees and costs.

12

See ECF No. 144 at 1–2; ECF No. 148 at 2, 8. In addition, however, Plaintiffs seek

13

declaratory relief as to their causes of action for violation of the TVPA and the California

14

TVPA, see FAC ¶¶ 35(g), 39(c), 46, 58; see also id. Prayer ¶ b, as well as injunctive relief

15

as to their causes of action for violation of the TVPA, the California TVPA, and the UCL.

16

See FAC ¶¶ 35(e) & (g), 39(c), 47–48, 59–60, 69; see also id. Prayer ¶ c. To establish

17

standing for such prospective equitable relief, the plaintiff must be able to show “a

18

significant likelihood that she will be wronged again in a similar way.” Ellis, 657 F.3d at

19

978 (citing Bates, 511 F.3d at 985).

20

Mr. Owino’s detention, however, ended on March 9, 2015, see ECF No. 84-3 ¶ 2,

21

and Mr. Gomez’s on September 18, 2013, 4 see ECF No. 84-4 ¶ 2, well before their initial

22

complaint was filed on May 31, 2017, see generally ECF No. 1, and the operative First

23
24
25
26
27
28

4

Plaintiffs’ status as former participants in the VWP presents other issues unrelated to standing. For
example, Plaintiffs assert a claim for waiting time penalties, see FAC ¶¶ 94–96; however, such penalties
“would be due to severed or terminated class members if Defendant[] were found liable on any of
the class claims,” Lusby v. Gamestop Inc., 297 F.R.D. 400, 410 (N.D. Cal. 2013) (emphasis added),
whereas Plaintiffs seek to certify a class comprised of both former and current participants in the VWP.
See FAC ¶ 30. Accordingly, “[an unspecified portion] of the Class Members would be entitled to certain
penalties sought in the Complaint, but the [rest] would not.” See Lusby, 297 F.R.D. at 410.
16
17-CV-1112 JLS (NLS)

1

Amended Complaint on October 12, 2018. See generally ECF No. 67. On November 7,

2

2019, the Court therefore ordered “the Parties to submit additional briefing on the

3

following issues: (1) Mr. Owino’s and Mr. Gomez’s standing to pursue each form of relief

4

sought in their First Amended Complaint; (2) the implications of their standing (or lack

5

thereof) on their pending Motion for Class Certification; and (3) the redressability of their

6

standing (or lack thereof) by amendment.” ECF No. 143 at 3.

7

a.

Named Plaintiffs’ Standing

8

In their supplemental brief, Plaintiffs contend that, “even through Plaintiffs were

9

released from CoreCivic’s custody prior to the filing of their original complaint, Plaintiffs

10

nonetheless have Article III standing to pursue their claims for prospective equitable relief”

11

because “[t]he Supreme Court has recognized that ‘[t]he violation of a procedural right

12

granted by statute can be sufficient in some circumstances to constitute injury in fact.”

13

ECF No. 144 at 3 (alteration in original) (quoting Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. ___,

14

136 S. Ct. 1540, 1543 (2016)). “Because Plaintiffs were actually harmed by conduct

15

proscribed by statute, and those statutes authorize prospective relief, Plaintiffs possess

16

Article III standing to pursue recovery in the form of injunctive and declaratory relief on

17

behalf of themselves and the proposed classes.” Id. at 4 (citing Ingalls v. Spotify USA, Inc.,

18

No. C 16-03533 WHA, 2017 WL 3021037, at *7 (N.D. Cal. July 17, 2017)).

19

Defendant counters that “a statute does not automatically confer Article III standing

20

simply because the statute authorizes prospective relief,” ECF No. 145 at 3–4 (citing Rivas

21

v. Rail Delivery Servs., Inc., 423 F.3d 1079, 1083 (9th Cir. 2005)), and “Plaintiffs lack

22

standing because they were not “exposed to a ‘real and immediate threat’ of future injury

23

at the time they filed their original Complaint.” Id. at 3 (citing Nordstrom v. Ryan, 856

24

F.3d 1265, 1270 n.2 (9th Cir. 2017)).

25

Defendant is correct that Spokeo does not relieve Plaintiffs seeking prospective

26

equitable relief from establishing a sufficient likelihood of future harm, see, e.g., Joslin v.

27

Clif Bar & Co., No. 4:18-CV-04941-JSW, 2019 WL 5690632, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 26,

28

2019) (recognizing after Spokeo that, “to show they have standing to seek injunctive relief,
17
17-CV-1112 JLS (NLS)

1

Plaintiffs must “demonstrate that [they have] suffered or [are] threatened with a ‘concrete

2

and particularized’ legal harm, coupled with a ‘sufficient likelihood that [they] will again

3

be wronged in a similar way’”) (quoting Bates v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 511 F.3d 974,

4

985 (9th Cir. 2007)), and the Court concludes that Plaintiffs’ have failed to make the

5

requisite showing. There are no allegations in the First Amended Complaint regarding

6

Plaintiffs’ likelihood of being detained at a CoreCivic facility in the future. See generally

7

FAC; see also ECF No. 144 at 5–6 (“Plaintiffs respectfully submit to the Court that they

8

can amend the FAC to add . . . allegations[ that] would clarify Plaintiffs’ . . . ‘sufficient

9

likelihood’ . . . [of] be[ing] detained at a CoreCivic facility in the future.”). The Court

10

therefore concludes that Plaintiffs have failed to establish Article III standing to seek

11

injunctive relief in the operative First Amended Complaint.

12

b.

Redressability Through Amendment

13

Because the Court determines that they have failed to establish standing to seek

14

prospective equitable relief, Plaintiffs request leave to amend their First Amended

15

Complaint to add new allegations regarding the “‘sufficient likelihood’ that both Plaintiffs

16

will be detained at a CoreCivic facility in the future and subject to CoreCivic’s challenged

17

policies and practices,” See ECF No. 144 at 6 (citing Davidson v. Kimberly-Clark Corp.,

18

873 F.3d 1103, 1113 (9th Cir. 2017)), or to add a new class representative. See id. at 7–9.

19

Plaintiffs note that their “counsel have been retained by a former detainee and putative

20

class member, Achiri Nelson Geh, who was subject to and harmed by the same policies

21

and practices as Plaintiffs while detained at Otay Mesa Detention Center [(“OMDC”)]

22

between April 24, 2017[,] and October 28, 2019.” Id. at 7. Additionally, “there are putative

23

class members who are presently detained at CoreCivic’s facilities who also have Article

24

III standing to assert a claim for prospective equitable relief.” Id. at 8.

25

Defendant responds that amendment would be futile because Plaintiffs have “waived

26

any classwide prospective relief” by “fail[ing] to seek certification of the putative classes

27

pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2).” ECF No. 145 at 5. Further, “Plaintiffs do not even try to meet

28

their burden under Rule 15 for amending pleadings.” ECF No. 145 at 7 (citing Foman v.
18
17-CV-1112 JLS (NLS)

1

Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962)). In any event, “add[ing] a new class representative

2

cannot resurrect the class claims for prospective relief,” id. at 6 (citing Lierboe v. State

3

Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 350 F.3d 1018, 1023 (9th Cir. 2013)), and Mr. Geh—as a former

4

detainee himself—“would not be a proper substitute anyway.” Id. at 6 n.3. Mr. Owino’s

5

and Mr. Gomez’s proposed amendments also “fall woefully short of establishing a ‘real

6

and immediate threat of repeated injury.’” Id. at 7 (quoting Fortyune v. Am. Multi-Cinema,

7

Inc., 364 F.3d 1075, 1081 (9th Cir. 2004)).

8

On reply, Plaintiffs respond that they have not “‘waived’ their claims for prospective

9

equitable relief by moving for class certification under Rule 23(b)(3)” because “courts

10

routinely certify classes seeking both damages and prospective equitable relief under Rule

11

23(b)(3)” and seeking certification under Rule 23(b)(2) would be “questionable . . . given

12

the significance of the proposed classes’ claims for damages.” ECF No. 148 at 1. Plaintiffs

13

also reiterate that “there is ‘a sufficient likelihood that [plaintiff] will again be wronged in

14

a similar way,’” id. at 9 (quoting Davidson, 873 F.3d at 1113) (alteration in original), and

15

that “other members of the putative class can be substituted into the case as named

16

Plaintiffs in the event the Court finds that Plaintiffs do not possess Article III standing to

17

pursue prospective equitable relief,” including Mr. Geh; “all named plaintiffs in the

18

currently stayed action Gonzalez, et al. v. CoreCivic, Inc., Case No. 17-CV-2573 JLS

19

(NLS)”; and any of the “hundreds of putative class members who are currently incarcerated

20

at CoreCivic’s facilities.” Id. at 9–10.

21

The Court concludes that Plaintiffs cannot cure Mr. Owino’s and Mr. Gomez’s lack

22

of standing through amendment. First, the Court agrees with Defendant that amendment

23

would be futile as to Mr. Owino and Mr. Gomez because their proposed amendments fail

24

to allege a sufficient likelihood of future harm. Although the Court acknowledges and

25

agrees that Mr. Owino and Mr. Gomez “have reasonable, deeply held concerns and fears

26

that they will be detained in the future,” see ECF No. 144 at 6 (citing ECF No. 144-1

27

¶¶ 6–11; ECF No. 144-2 ¶¶ 6–13), their proposed amendments fall short of establishing

28

that repeat detention is “certainly impending.” See Davidson, 873 F.3d at 1113. As
19
17-CV-1112 JLS (NLS)

1

Defendant notes, Mr. “Owino has been out of ICE custody for four years, [Mr.] Gomez has

2

been out of ICE custody for six years, and neither has been arrested or detained by ICE

3

since—even in the 2 ½ years after filings this lawsuit.” ECF No. 145 at 8 (citing ECF No.

4

144-1 ¶ 3; ECF No. 144-2 ¶ 3). Accordingly, even if the Court were to permit amendment, 5

5
6
5

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

Defendant is also correct that Plaintiffs have not attempted to make the requisite showing for leave to
amend. See ECF No. 145 at 7. Although Defendant analyzes the propriety of amendment under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 15, see id., Magistrate Judge Stormes set a deadline to amend the pleadings of
October 26, 2018. See ECF No. 57 ¶ 3. Accordingly, Plaintiffs must establish “good cause” to modify
Magistrate Judge Stormes’ scheduling order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4). See,
e.g., Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 608–09 (9th Cir. 1992). “Unlike Rule 15(a)’s
liberal amendment policy[,] which focuses on the bad faith of the party seeking to interpose an amendment
and the prejudice to the opposing party, Rule 16(b)’s ‘good cause’ standard primarily considers the
diligence of the party seeking the amendment.” Id. at 609. If the party seeking to modify the scheduling
order “was not diligent, the inquiry should end.” Id. “[C]ourts often find good cause when the motion to
amend the scheduling order is based upon new and pertinent information,” but not where the amendment
is “based on information that ha[s] been available to [the party] throughout the suit.” Lyon v. U.S.
Immigration & Customs Enf’t, 308 F.R.D. 203, 216 (N.D. Cal. 2015) (citing Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609;
Pumpco, Inc. v. Schenker Int’l, Inc., 204 F.R.D. 667, 668 (D. Colo. 2001)); see also In re W. States
Wholesale Nat. Gas Antitrust Litig., 715 F.3d 716, 737 (9th Cir. 2013) (affirming district court’s denial of
leave to amend because “[t]he good cause standard typically will not be met where the party seeking to
modify the scheduling order has been aware of the facts and theories supporting amendment since the
inception of the action.”), aff’d, 135 S. Ct. 1591 (2015).

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

Here, Plaintiffs have not “specifically request[ed] that the court modify the scheduling order,” Wolf v.
Hewlett Packard Co., No. CV1501221BROGJSX, 2016 WL 8931307, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 18, 2016)
(citing C.F. v. Capistrano Unified Sch. Dist., 647 F. Supp. 2d 1187, 1190 (C.D. Cal. 2009)), nor have they
attempted to show due diligence. See Coleman v. Quaker Oats Co., 232 F.3d 1271, 1294–95 (9th Cir.
2000) (affirming denial of motion to amend where plaintiffs “failed to show diligence”). That alone
suffices to end the Court’s good cause inquiry, see Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609; see also Hoffman, 315 F.R.D.
at 336; however, despite Plaintiffs’ well-founded objections to access to Defendant’s detainees, see Tr. at
53:21–57:12, they have been in possession of all facts relevant to their standing since the inception of this
suit and, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, had an affirmative duty to investigate the
theoretical underpinnings of their complaint—including their standing—before filing. See Soto v.
Castlerock Farming & Transp., Inc., No. 1:09-CV-00701 AWI, 2011 WL 3489876, at *7 (E.D. Cal. Aug.
9, 2011) (“Plaintiffs have known the causes of action since at least the filing of the first complaint in 2005,
and named [the named plaintiffs] as the class representatives in 2009. Plaintiffs were obligated to know
at that time whether they adequately represented the claims they brought in that complaint.”) (citing Fed.
R. Civ. P. 11(b)(3)); see also Kunimoto v. Fidell, 26 Fed. App’x 630, 631–32 (9th Cir. 2001) (affirming
imposition of Rule 11 sanctions where complaint was filed by plaintiffs lacking standing). Accordingly,
denial of leave to amend to cure Plaintiffs’ standing is appropriate. See, e.g., In re W. States, 715 F.3d at
737; Johnson, 975 F.3d at 609–10; Wolf, 2016 WL 8931307, at *6 (denying leave to amend where “it
appears Plaintiff has been aware of the facts giving rise to the need for amendment since the inception of
this action” and “Plaintiff therefore fails to establish good cause”); Soto, 2011 WL 3489876, at *7.
20
17-CV-1112 JLS (NLS)

1

Plaintiffs’ proposed amendments would fail to establish Article III standing to pursue their

2

claims for prospective equitable relief. See, e.g., Mendia v. Garcia, 165 F. Supp. 3d 861,

3

895 (N.D. Cal. 2016) (“Although Plaintiff articulates his fear of being subject to another

4

immigration detainer, he does not explain why or how this is likely to occur again.”);

5

Diamond v. Corizon Health, Inc., No. 16-CV-03534-JSC, 2016 WL 7034036, at *5 (N.D.

6

Cal. Dec. 2, 2016) (“Plaintiffs . . . fail to demonstrate a risk of repeated injury because the

7

repeated injury would require a string of contingencies to occur to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs’

8

alleged threat of injury would first require their arrest and placement in custody at an

9

Alameda County jail.”).

10

Second, the proposed amendment would also be futile as to Mr. Geh. Although

11

Mr. Geh was detained when this action and the operative First Amended Complaint were

12

filed, that does not mean that he would have standing as of the date of a future amendment

13

to add him as a named plaintiff. While generally “[s]tanding is determined by the facts

14

that exist at the time the complaint is filed,” Gonzalez v. Immigration & Customs Enf’t,

15

No. CV1304416BROFFMX, 2014 WL 12605369, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 24, 2014) (quoting

16

Clark v. City of Lakewood, 259 F.3d 996, 1006 (9th Cir. 2001) (citing Lujan v. Defenders

17

of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 569 n.4 (1992)), “[t]he standing of a later-added plaintiff is

18

determined as of the date of the amended complaint which brought him into the action.”

19

Id. (citing Lynch v. Leis, 382 F.3d 642, 647 (6th Cir. 2004)). Consequently, Mr. Geh “has

20

no standing” because “he is not currently detained [at OMDC] or in ICE custody.” See

21

ECF No. 145 at 6 n.3 (emphasis in original) (citing ECF No. 144-3 ¶¶ 2, 16).

22

Third, Defendant is correct that substitution of one of the named plaintiffs in the

23

Gonzalez action or another current CoreCivic detainee would be improper under these

24

circumstances. See ECF No. 145 at 6. “In a complaint involving multiple claims, at least

25

one named plaintiff must have Article III standing for each asserted claim.” Hoffman, 315

26

F.R.D. at 333 (emphasis in original) (citing In re Carrier IQ, Inc., Consumer Privacy Litig.,

27

78 F. Supp. 3d 1051, 1070 (N.D. Cal. 2015); Newberg on Class Actions § 2:5 (5th ed.)).

28

“A finding that no class representative has standing with respect to a given claim requires
21
17-CV-1112 JLS (NLS)

1

dismissal of that claim.” Id. (quoting Newberg on Class Actions § 2:5 (5th ed.)); see also

2

Lierboe, 350 F.3d at 1023 (remanding with instructions to dismiss where the named

3

plaintiff never had standing to assert claim). Because neither Mr. Owino nor Mr. Gonzalez

4

had standing to assert claims for prospective equitable relief when they initiated this case,

5

the Court DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiffs’ first, second, and third

6

causes of action to the extent they seek injunctive and/or declaratory relief. 6 See, e.g.,

7

Davis v. Homecomings Fin., No. C05-1466RSL, 2007 WL 1600809, at *4–5 (W.D. Wash.

8

June 1, 2007) (decertifying class and concluding that “substitution is not warranted because

9

this is not a case where the named plaintiff had a valid claim that later became moot”); In

10

re Admin. Comm. Erisa Litig., No. C03-3302 PJH, 2005 WL 3454126, at *8 (N.D. Cal.

11

Dec. 16, 2005) (denying motion for class certification and dismissing complaint where

12

named plaintiff failed to establish standing); Williams v. Boeing Co., No. C98-761P, 2005

13

WL 2921960, at *10 (W.D. Wash. Nov. 4, 2005) (decertifying class as to certain claims

14

and concluding that “intervention would not be appropriate” because “the named Plaintiffs

15

have not demonstrated standing in the first instance to maintain such claims”), aff’d in part,

16

dismissed in part, 517 F.3d 1120 (9th Cir. 2008).

17

c.

Implications for Class Certification

18

Because Plaintiffs have failed to establish standing to pursue injunctive or

19

declaratory relief, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Certification Motion as to Plaintiffs’

20

claims for prospective equitable relief and DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE those

21

claims. See supra Section II.A.2.b; see also, e.g., Slayman v. FedEx Ground Package Sys.,

22

Inc., 765 F.3d 1033, 1047–48 (9th Cir. 2014) (reversing certification of class claims for

23

prospective relief where named plaintiffs were no longer employed by defendant at time

24

class was certified and therefore lacked standing) (citing Bd. of Sch. Comm’rs of

25

Indianapolis v. Jacobs, 420 U.S. 128, 129 (1975) (per curiam), Kuahulu v. Emp’rs Ins. of

26
27
28

6

The Court therefore does not reach Defendant’s argument that Plaintiffs have “waived any classwide
prospective relief” by “fail[ing] to seek certification of the putative classes pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2).”
ECF No. 145 at 5.
22
17-CV-1112 JLS (NLS)

1

Wausau, 557 F.2d 1334, 1336–37 (9th Cir. 1977)); Gustafson v. Goodman Mfg. Co. LP,

2

No. CV-13-08274-PCT-JAT, 2016 WL 1029333, at *8 (D. Ariz. Mar. 14, 2016) (“If a

3

plaintiff lacks standing or has no claim ‘she cannot represent others who may have such a

4

claim, and her bid to serve as a class representative must fail.’”) (quoting Lierboe, 350 F.3d

5

at 1022; Pence v. Andrus, 586 F.2d 733, 736–37 (9th Cir. 1978)); see also B.C. v. Plumas

6

Unified Sch. Dist., 192 F.3d 1260, 1264 (9th Cir. 1999) (affirming district court’s dismissal

7

of class claims for injunctive relief where named plaintiff was no longer a student of the

8

defendant school district and therefore lacked standing to seek injunctive relief);

9

Balasanyan v. Nordstrom, Inc., 294 F.R.D. 550, 562 (S.D. Cal. 2013) (concluding that

10

named plaintiffs who were former employees of the defendant could “[]not establish a

11

sufficient likelihood that they w[ould] again be wronged by [the defendant employer]’s

12

allegedly improper conduct,” meaning that the plaintiffs “ha[d] no standing to pursue

13

injunctive relief and, therefore, their claims are not typical of the proposed class”).

14

But “CoreCivic does not dispute that Plaintiffs possess Article III standing to seek

15

monetary damages, restitution, interest, penalties, punitive damages, and fees and costs for

16

the putative classes. Nor does CoreCivic dispute in its Supplemental Brief that the Court

17

can and should certify the . . . proposed classes as to claims seeking these remedies.” ECF

18

No. 148 at 2. The Court therefore concludes that it may continue the class certification

19

analysis as to Plaintiffs’ remaining claims. See, e.g., Balasanyan, 294 F.R.D. at 562

20

(granting class certification as to remaining claims despite denying certification as to

21

claims for injunctive relief, for which the named plaintiffs failed to establish standing).

22

3.

Ascertainability

23

Defendant challenges the “ascertainability” of Plaintiffs’ proposed classes,

24

contending that the Class definitions are over-inclusive and too vague and that the Class

25

periods are overly broad. See ECF No. 118 at 14–18. Plaintiffs respond that “the Ninth

26

Circuit has expressly rejected imposing an ‘ascertainability’ requirement for class

27

certification.” ECF No. 127 at 7 (citing Briseno v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., 844 F.3d 1121,

28

1124 n.4 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 313 (2017)).
23
17-CV-1112 JLS (NLS)

1

Plaintiffs are correct: In Briseno, the Ninth Circuit clarified that “ascertainability”

2

is not a pre-requisite to class certification and that “the types of alleged definitional

3

deficiencies other courts have referred to as ‘ascertainability’ issues . . . [are addressed]

4

through analysis of Rule 23’s enumerated requirements.”

5

(citing Torres v. Mercer Canyons Inc., 835 F.3d 1125, 1136–39 (9th Cir. 2016); Probe v.

6

State Teachers’ Ret. Sys., 780 F.2d 776, 780 (9th Cir. 1986)). The Court therefore

7

addresses Defendant’s challenges to the breadth and vagueness of the Class definitions and

8

periods below.

9

B.

10

844 F.3d at 1124 n.4

Rule 23(a) Requirements
1.

Numerosity

11

“[A] proposed class must be ‘so numerous that joinder of all members is

12

impracticable.’” Rannis v. Recchia, 380 Fed. App’x 646, 650 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Fed.

13

R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1)). While “[t]he numerosity requirement is not tied to any fixed numerical

14

threshold[,] . . . [i]n general, courts find the numerosity requirement satisfied when a class

15

includes at least 40 members.” Id. at 651.

16

Plaintiffs claim that Rule 23(a)’s numerosity requirement is satisfied because “the

17

CA Labor Law Class has at least 8,346 putative class members” and, “[w]hile the exact

18

size of the other [two] proposed classes are not currently known, general knowledge and

19

common sense indicate that they are large enough to satisfy the numerosity requirement of

20

Rule 23(a).” ECF No. 87 at 15 (citing Ridley Decl. Exs. 45–50 & 88, ECF Nos. 85-46–51

21

& 85-89 (public redacted versions), ECF Nos. 87-33–38 & 87-76 (sealed versions)). This

22

is because “[t]he CA Forced Labor Class and the National Forced Labor Class arise out of

23

CoreCivic’s policy and practice of requiring ‘all’ ICE detainees at its facilities to perform

24

cleaning work outside of the ICE detainees’ immediate living areas under threat of

25

discipline,” meaning those “classes will necessarily include several thousands of former

26

and current ICE detainees, and the requirement of numerosity is satisfied.” Id. at 16

27

(emphasis in original).

28

///
24
17-CV-1112 JLS (NLS)

1

Defendant counters that Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden because “[a]

2

higher level of proof than mere common[-]sense impression or extrapolation from cursory

3

allegations is required.”

4

(“Similasan”), 306 F.R.D. 635, 681 (S.D. Cal. 2015)) (alteration in original). Regarding

5

the California Labor Law Class, for example, the exhibits to which Plaintiffs cite “identify

6

only 55 detainees who received an account deposit for ‘Job Pay[,]’” and “Plaintiffs fail to

7

identify the number of detainees who were eligible for, but did not receive, a rest period,

8

meal period, or overtime wages.”

9

[regarding the sizes of the Force Labor Classes] does not satisfy the numerosity

10

requirement.” Id. at 20 (citing Schwartz v. Upper Deck Co., 183 F.R.D. 672, 681 (S.D.

11

Cal. 1999)).

ECF No. 118 at 18 (quoting Allen v. Similasan Corp.

Id. at 18–19.

Similarly, Plaintiffs’ “speculation

12

Plaintiffs rejoin that “[t]he numerosity requirement is satisfied for each proposed

13

class.” ECF No. 127 at 9. As for the California Labor Law Class, “Plaintiffs filed excerpts

14

of the OMS reports because their size renders them nearly impossible to file on the public

15

docket.” Id. As for the Forced Labor Classes, “each will necessarily include several

16

thousands of former and current ICE detainees” because they “arise out of CoreCivic’s

17

policy and practice of requiring ‘all’ ICE detainees to perform cleaning work outside of

18

the ICE detainees’ immediate living areas under threat of discipline.” Id. at 10 (emphasis

19

in original).

20

The Court concludes that Plaintiffs have satisfied Rule 23(a)’s numerosity

21

requirement for the California Labor Law Class, the California Forced Labor Class, and

22

the Nationwide Forced Labor Class. Plaintiffs need not prove the identity of each class

23

member at the class certification stage, see, e.g., Allen v. Hyland’s Inc. (“Hyland’s”), 300

24

F.R.D. 643, 658 (C.D. Cal. 2014), and the Court concludes that it is readily apparent from

25

the number of ICE detainees Defendant has housed in its various facilities in California

26

and nationwide over the years at issue that the classes are so numerous that it would be

27

impracticable to join all parties here. See, e.g., Similasan, 306 F.R.D. at 644 (concluding

28

that it was “readily apparent that the class is so numerous that it would be impracticable to
25
17-CV-1112 JLS (NLS)

1

join all parties” where the “[d]efendant sells its Products through at least thirteen

2

retailers”); Hyland’s, 300 F.R.D. at 660 (finding that numerosity “is easily satisfied given

3

that the putative class action includes consumers of twelve products sold nationwide over

4

the course of several years”).

5

2.

Commonality

6

Rule 23(a)(2) requires that “there are questions of law or fact common to the class.”

7

Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(2). To satisfy this requirement, “[a]ll questions of fact and law need

8

not be common to satisfy the rule. The existence of shared legal issues with divergent

9

factual predicates is sufficient, as is a common core of salient facts coupled with disparate

10

legal remedies within the class.” Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011, 1019 (9th Cir.

11

1998). The common contention, however, “must be of such a nature that it is capable of

12

classwide resolution—which means that determination of its truth or falsity will resolve an

13

issue that is central to the validity of each one of the claims in one stroke.” Wal-Mart, 564

14

U.S. at 350.

15

Plaintiffs argue that their “claims all hinge on common contentions that are capable

16

of classwide resolution.” ECF No. 87 at 16. Defendant contends that Plaintiffs have failed

17

to establish that Defendant has policies or practices common to all putative class members,

18

see ECF No. 118 at 25–29, and that individual questions predominate. See id. at 29–33.

19

Because Plaintiffs and Defendant have collapsed their arguments concerning the

20

predominance of common issues under Rule 23(b)(3) with their discussion of commonality

21

under Rule 23(a)(2), compare ECF No. 87 at 24; and ECF No. 127 at 10–12, with ECF No.

22

118 at 24–33, the Court discusses both commonality and predominance under the “far more

23

demanding” Rule 23(b)(3) predominance analysis. See infra Section II.C.1; see also ECF

24

No. 118 at 25 (quoting Amchem Prods. Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 624 (1997)).

25

3.

Typicality and Adequacy

26

The Ninth Circuit has explained that “representative claims are ‘typical’ if they are

27

reasonably co-extensive with those of absent class members; they need not be substantially

28

identical.” Staton, 327 F.3d at 957; Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1019. The test of typicality “is
26
17-CV-1112 JLS (NLS)

1

whether other members have the same or similar injury, whether the action is based on

2

conduct which is not unique to the named plaintiffs, and whether other class members have

3

been injured by the same course of conduct.” Schwartz v. Harp, 108 F.R.D. 279, 282 (C.D.

4

Cal. 1985).

5

Rule 23(a)(4) also requires that “the representative parties will fairly and adequately

6

protect the interests of the class.” “To determine whether the representation meets this

7

standard, [courts] ask two questions: (1) Do the representative plaintiffs and their counsel

8

have any conflicts of interest with other class members, and (2) will the representative

9

plaintiffs and their counsel prosecute the action vigorously on behalf of the class?” Staton,

10

327 F.3d at 957.

11

a.

Representative Plaintiffs

12

Plaintiffs contend that their “own claims are typical of the classes that they seek to

13

represent” because, “[l]ike the putative class members, Plaintiffs were also subject to

14

CoreCivic’s uniform policies and practices.” ECF No. 87 at 22. Further, Plaintiffs urge

15

that they will adequately represent the proposed Classes because “Plaintiffs each seek relief

16

on behalf of the class as a whole and have no interest antagonistic to other class members.”

17

Id. at 23. Defendant raises several challenges to Mr. Owino’s and Mr. Gomez’s adequacy

18

and typicality, see ECF No. 118 at 20–24, which the Court addresses in turn.

19

i.

Membership in the Proposed Classes

20

First, Defendant argues that neither Mr. Owino nor Mr. Gomez has demonstrated

21

through his declaration that he is a member of any of the proposed classes he seeks to

22

represent. See ECF No. 87 at 21–22, 23. Plaintiffs respond that they need “not specifically

23

define the dates and times on which the labor law violations occurred” and that “CoreCivic

24

failed to submit any documents or records establishing that Plaintiff did not work during

25

the applicable limitations period in spite of the fact that CoreCivic employed Mr. Owino

26

and Mr. Gomez and w[as] better positioned (and required by California law) to maintain

27

such employment records.” ECF No. 127 at 12.

28

///
27
17-CV-1112 JLS (NLS)

1

The Forced Labor Classes:

The Court concludes that both Mr. Owino and

2

Mr. Gomez have adequately established for purposes of class certification that they are

3

members of the California and National Forced Labor Classes. For example, Mr. Owino

4

and Mr. Gomez both attest that “[d]etainees were . . . responsible for removing trash from

5

the common areas of the living pods on a daily basis, sweeping and mopping floors, and

6

cleaning toilet bowls, sinks, showers, and furniture,” ECF No. 84-3 ¶ 20 (emphasis added);

7

ECF No. 84-4 ¶ 16 (emphasis added), and that they “were not paid for working to clean

8

the common areas when instructed by OMDC staff.” ECF No. 84-3 ¶ 21; ECF No. 84-4

9

¶ 17. Further, the detainees “almost always complied,” ECF No. 84-3 ¶ 23; ECF No. 84-4

10

¶ 19, “to avoid any punishment,” ECF No. 84-3 ¶ 24; see also ECF No. 84-4 ¶ 20, because

11

non-compliant detainees “could be subject to more random and frequent searches and cell

12

tossing,” “removed from the general living pod and placed in more restrictive housing,” or

13

saddled with a disciplinary note in their files that “could negatively impact [their] case

14

before the judge.” ECF No. 84-3 ¶ 23; ECF No. 84-4 ¶ 19.

15

The California Labor Law Class:

The Court concludes that Mr. Owino and

16

Mr. Gomez adequately have established that they were never paid a minimum wage

17

through the VWP program, see ECF No. 84-3 ¶ 10; ECF No. 84-4 ¶ 8, and that they never

18

received wage statements. See ECF No. 84-3 ¶ 13; ECF No. 84-4 ¶ 10. As such, the Court

19

also concludes that they have established for purposes of class certification that Defendant

20

failed to pay compensation upon termination and imposed unlawful terms and conditions

21

of employment. 7

22

As for the claims for failure to pay overtime wages and failure to provide mandated

23

meal and rest periods, however, the Court concludes that Mr. Owino has established that

24

he is a member of the class for his work in the kitchen but that Mr. Owino and Mr. Gomez

25

have failed to establish that they are members of the class for any other positions they held

26
27
28

7

Mr. Owino’s and Mr. Gomez’s claims for waiting time penalties, however, may not be typical of those
of the Class to the extent Mr. Owino and Mr. Gomez seek to represent current detainees still participating
in the VWP. See supra note 4.
28
17-CV-1112 JLS (NLS)

1

while detained by Defendant. 8 As for Mr. Owino’s work in the kitchen, he attests that he

2

“worked in the kitchen on and off throughout each period of detention at OMDC.” ECF

3

No. 84-3 ¶ 5. His “normal shift in the kitchen was from 3:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m., five days

4

per week,” id. ¶ 6, and that his “usual schedule would be to work from 3:00 a.m. until about

5

6:30 a.m.” and from 7:00 a.m. to “12:00 p.m. without any other scheduled rest break.” Id.

6

¶ 7. Although there was typically a meal “break” between 6:30 a.m. and 7:00 a.m., the

7

kitchen crew had to use at least some of that time to prepare their own meals. Id. Further,

8

“there were many instances where [Mr. Owino] and other kitchen workers would work

9

more than [their] shift[,] . . . including up to 14 working hours in a day.” Id. ¶ 6. Mr. Owino

10

was paid $1.00 per day, id. ¶ 10, regardless of the length of his shift or any extra hours

11

worked. See id. ¶ 11. His pay was also capped at $5.00 per week, meaning that when he

12

worked a sixth and/or seventh day each week, he would not receive any additional

13

payment. See id. ¶ 22. Accordingly, Mr. Owino has proven that, as a member of the

14

kitchen crew, he may not have been paid overtime, provided with mandatory rest periods,

15

and provided with proper meal periods.

16

But the declarations fail to provide sufficient detail as to Mr. Owino’s work as a

17

chemical porter and cleaner or as to Mr. Gomez’s work as a cleaner for the Court to

18

conclude that they are members of the California Labor Class as to the overtime and rest

19

and meal break claims as to those positions. Mr. Owino and Mr. Gomez both attest that

20

there was “no set shift” for these positions and that they were expected to “work ‘until the

21

job was done[,]’” without any “scheduled rest or meal breaks.” ECF No. 84-3 ¶¶ 8–9; ECF

22

No. 84-4 ¶ 7. From the limited evidence in the record, it appears that the “typical” schedule

23

for these positions was between two and six hours per shift, see ECF No. 118-5 at 479

24
25
26
27
28

8

There also may exist typicality issues where, as here, the representative plaintiffs seek to represent a
class comprised of individuals holding positions that differ from their own. See, e.g., Kelley v. SBC, Inc.,
No. 97-CV-2729 CW, 1998 WL 1794379, at *15 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 18, 1998) (“[T]he typicality requirement
is not met for a class that would include both employees in Plaintiffs’ positions, in which there is
substantial diversity, and other positions that named Plaintiffs do not hold. The Court thus finds that
Plaintiffs meet the typicality requirement only as to a class comprised of the positions that they held.”).
29
17-CV-1112 JLS (NLS)

1

¶¶ 40–42; 9 however, a rest period is only mandated for shifts lasting at least three-and-a-

2

half hours, IWC Order No. 5-2001, Section 12(A), while a meal break is only required for

3

shifts lasting at least five hours. See Cal. Labor Code § 512(a). Plaintiffs therefore have

4

failed to establish that they were entitled to overtime or meal or rest periods for work

5

performed as chemical porters or cleaners.

6

ii.

Statute of Limitations

7

Second, Defendant contends that both Mr. Owino and Mr. Gomez may be time-

8

barred from pursuing claims under the California Labor Code and IWC Orders. See ECF

9

No. 118 at 23–24. Plaintiffs counter that “possible differences in the application of a statute

10

of limitations to individual class members, including the named plaintiff, does not preclude

11

certification of a class action so long as the necessary commonality and, in the 23(b)(3)

12

class action, predominance, are otherwise present.” ECF No. 127 at 13 (quoting Dibb v.

13

Allianceone Receivables Mgmt., Inc., No. 14-5835 RJB, 2015 WL 8970778, at *8 (W.D.

14

Wash. Dec. 16, 2015)).

15

The Court must first determine the applicable class periods. Plaintiffs claim that

16

their “claims for unpaid wages and for violations of the UCL are all governed by a

17

four[-]year statute of limitations.” ECF No. 160 at 3 (citing White v. Home Depot U.S.A.,

18

Inc., No. 17-cv-00752-BAS-AGS, 2019 WL 1171163, at *24 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2019)).

19

Defendant responds that the California Labor Code claims are time-barred and that

20

Plaintiffs can pursue only the UCL claim. See ECF No. 164 at 2–3 (citing Mendoza v.

21

Bank of Am. Corp., No. 19-cv-02491-LB, 2019 WL 4142140, at *9 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 30,

22

2019); Vasquez v. Randstad US, L.P., No. 17-CV-04342-EMC, 2018 WL 327451, at *4

23

(N.D. Cal. Jan. 9, 2018); Van v. Language Line Servs., Inc., No. 14-CV-03791-LHK, 2016

24

WL 3143951, at *30 (N.D. Cal. June 6, 2016), aff’d in part, 733 F. App’x 349 (9th Cir.

25

2018); Cortez v. Purolator Air Filtration Prods. Co., 23 Cal. 4th 163, 178–79 (2000)).

26
27
28

9

Pin citations to Defendant’s exhibits refer to the pagination provided by Defendant at the bottom of each
page.
30
17-CV-1112 JLS (NLS)

1

For purposes of the Certification Motion, this is a distinction without a difference:

2

Even if Plaintiff’s claims under the California Labor Code are time-barred, they still may

3

recover for the majority of the alleged violations under the UCL. Accordingly, the Class

4

Period for the California Labor Class to the extent it is predicated on Defendant’s alleged

5

failure to pay wages, including the meal and rest break claims, see Tompkins v. C & S

6

Wholesale Grocers, Inc., No. 2:11-CV-02836-GEB, 2012 WL 639349, at *5 (E.D. Cal.

7

Feb. 27, 2012) (citing Tomlinson v. Indymac Bank, F.S.B., 359 F. Supp. 2d 891, 898 (C.D.

8

Cal. 2005)), begins May 31, 2013. Magadia v. Wal-Mart Assocs., Inc., 384 F. Supp. 3d

9

1058, 1076 (N.D. Cal. 2019) (citing Cortez v. Purolator Air Filtration Prods. Co., 23 Cal.

10

4th 163, 179 (2000)). The waiting time claims and wage statement claims, however, seek

11

remedies that cannot be pursued under the UCL. See, e.g., Gomez v. J. Jacobo Farm Labor

12

Contractor, Inc., No. 115CV01489AWIBAM, 2019 WL 5787805, at *25–26 (E.D. Cal.

13

Nov. 6, 2019) (wage statement claims); Pineda v. Bank of Am., N.A., 50 Cal. 4th 1389,

14

1401–02 (2010) (waiting time claims). Consequently, the Class Period for the California

15

Labor Law Class to the extent it is predicated on Defendant’s alleged failure timely to pay

16

compensation upon termination begins May 31, 2014, see Hassan v. Praxair, Inc., No.

17

LACV1802811JAKAFMX, 2019 WL 3064435, at *5 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 4, 2019), and there

18

are two Class Periods for Defendant’s alleged failure to provide wage statements, see

19

Troester v. Starbucks Corp., No. CV1207677CJCPJWX, 2019 WL 2902487, at *2 (C.D.

20

Cal. May 21, 2019) (collecting cases): (1) for purposes of penalties, the Class Period begins

21

May 31, 2016, pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 340; and (2) for

22

purpose of actual damages, the Class Period begins May 31, 2014, pursuant to California

23

Code of Civil Procedure section 338. See Gomez, 2019 WL 5787805, at *23; Troester,

24

2019 WL 2902487, at *2; Franke v. Anderson Merchandisers LLC, No. CV173241

25

DSFAFMX, 2017 WL 3224656, at *8 (C.D. Cal. July 28, 2017).

26

///

27

///

28

///
31
17-CV-1112 JLS (NLS)

1

Mr. Gomez was released from detention on September 18, 2013, see ECF No. 84-4

2

¶ 2, and Mr. Owino was released on March 9, 2015. 10 See ECF No. 84-3 ¶ 2. On the

3

current record, it appears that Mr. Owino is part of the California Labor Law Class for the

4

wage claims, for failure to pay compensation upon termination, and for waiting time

5

penalties and actual damages for the failure to provide wage statements, whereas

6

Mr. Gomez is only part of the California Labor Law Class for the wage claims.

7

Mr. Owino’s inability to pursue penalties under Section 226 and Mr. Gomez’s inability to

8

pursue waiting time penalties under Section 203 and either penalties or actual damages

9

under Section 226 present a legitimate challenge to their typicality. See Lindblom v.

10

Santander Consumer USA, Inc., No. 15-CV-0990-BAM, 2018 WL 573356, at *5 (E.D.

11

Cal. Jan. 26, 2018) (“[T]his Court and other courts in this Circuit routinely preclude

12

potentially time-barred plaintiffs from serving as class representatives when they seek

13

to represent members with timely claims.”) (collecting cases); Deirmenjian v. Deutsche

14

Bank, A.G., No. CV0600774MMMRCX, 2010 WL 11505699, at *25 (C.D. Cal. May 13,

15

2010) (“Because none of the proposed class representatives appears to have a viable claim,

16

the court finds that the typicality requirement is not satisfied.”); Blackwell v. SkyWest

17

Airlines, Inc., 245 F.R.D. 453, 463 (S.D. Cal. 2007) (“Plaintiff experienced no harm within

18

the one year statute of limitations because she did not receive a pay stub that allegedly

19

failed to document exact work hours. . . . Plaintiff therefore lacks standing.”) (citing Sosna

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

10

Defendant argued for the first time in its post-hearing supplemental brief that, “[a]lthough Mr. Owino’s
last stay at SDCF was from February 9, 2015 to March 9, 2015 (Dkt. 147-1, ¶ 7), the last day he worked
at SDCF (the only CoreCivic facility he was detained at) was . . . May 22, 2013 (Dkt. 118-7 at 155,
CCOG0000246[3]).” See ECF No. 164 at 2. If this is true, Mr. Owino will not be a member of the
California Labor Law Class, the Class Period for which begins May 31, 2013. See supra page 31.
Although the Court permitted Plaintiffs to file a response to Defendant’s supplemental brief, thereby
mitigating any due process concerns, the Court is disinclined to resolve this issue at the class certification
stage given Defendant’s belated assertion of this defense and factual disputes concerning whether
Mr. Owino worked during the Class Period for the California Labor Law Class, see ECF No. 169 at 1,
3–4; compare ECF No. 84-3 ¶ 5 (“During each period of detention at OMDC, I performed work through
the ‘Volunteer Work Program.’”), with ECF No. 118-7 at 774 (claiming to show that Mr. Owino’s last
date of payment through the VWP was May 22, 2013), particularly given that Mr. Gomez remains a viable
class representative for the majority of the claims of the California Labor Law Class.
32
17-CV-1112 JLS (NLS)

1

v. Iowa, 419 U.S. 393, 402–03 (1975)); see also Troester, 2019 WL 2902487, at *2

2

(“[W]hether [the named plaintiff] can represent . . . class members [who may pursue

3

penalties under Section 226] is a typicality issue for class certification.”); Burton v.

4

Mountain W. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 214 F.R.D. 598, 609 (D. Mont. 2003) (“[The

5

proposed class representative’s] claim is time-barred and she cannot serve as a class

6

representative.”).

7

Accordingly, the Court concludes that neither Mr. Owino nor Mr. Gomez is typical

8

of the members of the California Labor Law Class seeking penalties under Section 226 and

9

that Mr. Gomez is not typical of members of the California Labor Law Class seeking

10

waiting time penalties under Section 203 or penalties or actual damages under Section 226.

11

iii.

Non-California Facilities

12

Finally, as to the National Forced Labor Class, Defendant urges that because both

13

Mr. Owino and Mr. Gomez were detained at California facilities, “they cannot say that they

14

suffered the same or similar injury as putative class members at these facilities” and “they

15

also have no incentive to pursue a class action on behalf of detainees in facilities they never

16

stepped foot in.” ECF No. 118 at 24. Defendant also contends that Plaintiffs have failed

17

to meet their burden to establish uniform policies as to sanitation and discipline because

18

Plaintiffs have introduced evidence concerning the policies of only ten of Defendant’s

19

twenty-four nationwide facilities and the declarations of only four detainees, all of whom

20

are from Defendant’s California facilities. Id. at 26.

21

Plaintiffs rejoin that they “and the putative class members all worked as a direct

22

result of . . . threats” of discipline and that “Plaintiffs can adequately represent the interests

23

of a national class because they were subjected to CoreCivic’s enterprise-wide policies and

24

practices and their claims are typical of the class.” ECF No. 127 at 14 (citing Evans v.

25

IAC/Interactive Corp., 244 F.R.D. 568, 573, 576 (C.D. Cal. 2007)). Further, “CoreCivic

26

fails to address, and effectively concedes, that (1) its facilities use template policies and

27

procedures that are create by CoreCivic’s Facility Support Center, which functions as

28

CoreCivic’s ‘corporate office,’ and (2) the use of the template policies and procedures are
33
17-CV-1112 JLS (NLS)

1

mandatory such that facilities do not have the ability to ‘opt out’ of them.” ECF No. 127

2

at 10–11 (citing Ridley Decl. Ex. 3 at 50:15–51:25, 54:24–55:4, 59:1–5, 68:1–9; Ridley

3

Decl. Ex. 6 at 59:8–12). “CoreCivic[] . . . also overlooks Mr. Ellis’ testimony that the

4

VWP, sanitation, and discipline policies on which Plaintiffs rely are ‘standard policies’ that

5

are applicable across CoreCivic’s facilities.” Id. at 11 (citing Ridley Decl. Ex. 3 at

6

75:9–25, 77:13–17).

7

The Court concludes that Plaintiffs adequately have established standardized

8

policies concerning the cleaning of common areas under threat of discipline across

9

Defendant’s non-California facilities. The policies from ten of Defendant’s twenty-four

10

facilities, see ECF No. 118 at 3; see also Ridley Decl. Exs. 9, 12–29, coupled with the

11

testimony from Defendant’s Rule 30(b)(6) witness that Defendant uses template policies

12

throughout its facilities from which the facilities cannot opt out, see Ridley Decl. Ex. 3 at

13

49:21–51:147 54:24–55:13, 59:1–5, 68:1–9, 75:9–25, 77:13–17, compel the Court to

14

conclude that Plaintiffs have met their burden at the class certification stage as to the

15

standardization of Defendant’s policies across its facilities. See Alba, 2007 WL 953849,

16

at *2 (noting that contention that policy was applied differently in California “goes to the

17

merits of the dispute”). Consequently, for purposes of class certification, the Court

18

concludes that Plaintiffs have established that their claims under the TVPA are typical of

19

those of the putative members of the National Forced Labor Class given the uniformity of

20

policies across Defendant’s facilities for the cleaning of common areas and discipline for

21

failure to comply. See infra Section II.C.1.a.2; see also Balasanyan, 294 F.R.D. at 562

22

(concluding that California plaintiffs were typical of proposed nationwide class over the

23

defendant employer’s argument “that Plaintiffs have failed to show that their experiences

24

are typical of the experiences of more than 60,000 draw commission salespeople in 30

25

different states at 117 stores” because the defendant “offer[ed] no additional information

26

as to why Plaintiffs fall short of typicality”); In re AutoZone, Inc., Wage & Hour Emp’t

27

Practices Litig., 289 F.R.D. 526, 535 (N.D. Cal. 2012) (“Plaintiffs are typical of the

28

proposed class [of current and former employees from hundreds of retail auto parts stores
34
17-CV-1112 JLS (NLS)

1

in California] because they were subject to the same policy as the proposed class.”), aff’d,

2

No. 17-17533, 2019 WL 4898684 (9th Cir. Oct. 4, 2019); Dilts v. Penske Logistics, LLC,

3

267 F.R.D. 625, 633 (S.D. Cal. 2010) (“Plaintiffs have provided evidence that indicates

4

that they were subject to all of these alleged wrongs and that the relevant policies were

5

common across Defendant’s California facilities.”).

6

b.

Plaintiffs’ Counsel

7

Plaintiffs’ counsel indicates that it “does not have any conflicts with other class

8

members and will prosecute the action vigorously on behalf of both the named and absent

9

class members,” ECF No. 87 at 23–24 (citing Ridley Decl. ¶¶ 2–16; Teel Decl. ¶ 4), and

10

that its attorneys “are well qualified, have significant experience in prosecuting complex

11

litigation cases, and have previously been certified as class counsel in a class action

12

involving claims against a prison technology company on behalf of detainees/prisoners.”

13

Id. at 24 (citing Ridley Decl. ¶¶ 2–16; Teel Decl. ¶¶ 9–25). Further, “CoreCivic does not

14

dispute the adequacy of Plaintiffs’ proposed class counsel.”

15

Consequently, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs’ counsel “will fairly and adequately

16

protect the interests of the class.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4).

17

C.

ECF No. 127 at 12.

Rule 23(b)(3) Requirements

18

Rule 23(b)(3) states that a class may be maintained if the requirements of Rule 23(a)

19

are fulfilled and if “the court finds that the questions of law or fact common to the class

20

members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and that a

21

class action is superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the

22

controversy.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3).

23

1.

Predominance of Common Issues

24

The predominance analysis focuses on “the legal or factual questions that qualify

25

each class member’s case as a genuine controversy” to determine “whether proposed

26

classes are sufficiently cohesive to warrant adjudication by representation.” Amchem

27

Prods., 521 U.S. at 623; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) (to certify a class, the court must

28

find that “questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any
35
17-CV-1112 JLS (NLS)

1

questions affecting only individual members”). “Considering whether questions of law or

2

fact common to class members predominate begins . . . with the elements of the underlying

3

cause of action.” Erica P. John Fund, Inc. v. Halliburton Co., 563 U.S. 804, 809 (2011)

4

(quotation marks omitted). A court must analyze these elements to “determine which are

5

subject to common proof and which are subject to individualized proof.” In re TFT-LCD

6

(Flat Panel) Antitrust Litig., 267 F.R.D. 291, 310–11 (N.D. Cal. 2010), abrogated on other

7

grounds by In re ATM Fee Antitrust Litig., 686 F.3d 741 (9th Cir. 2012).

8

a.

Uniformity of Defendant’s Policies

9

As an initial matter, Defendant contends that, “to certify a claim based on a policy

10

or practice, a plaintiff must present ‘significant proof’ that a policy or practice in fact exists

11

and that the entire class was subjected to it.” ECF No. 118 at 25 (citing Wal-Mart, 564

12

U.S. at 353; Ellis, 657 F.3d at 983) (emphasis in original). Defendant challenges Plaintiffs’

13

proof regarding the uniformity of its sanitation and disciplinary policies and overtime and

14

break policies. See id. at 25–29.

15
16

i.

California Labor Law Class: Overtime and Rest and Meal
Break Policies

17

Defendant argues that Plaintiffs have failed to “provide any evidence to support any

18

. . . policies” that Defendant does “not pay[] overtime wages and refus[es] to provide rest

19

and meal breaks, in violation of California’s labor laws.” ECF No. 118 at 28. In fact,

20

Defendant argues, its policy explicitly “prohibit[s] detainees from working more than eight

21

hours in a day or forty hours in a week.” Id. (emphasis in original).

22

Plaintiffs counter that “the common policies and practices alleged by Plaintiffs are

23

either confirmed by CoreCivic in its Opposition Brief or established by CoreCivic’s own

24

written policies and Mr. Ellis’ testimony.” ECF No. 127 at 10. “At best, CoreCivic has

25

created a dispute of material fact concerning the existence of the policies and practices that

26

are the subject of Plaintiffs’ class claims[, b]ut merely denying the existence of a policy or

27

practice in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary is not sufficient to defeat

28

class certification.” Id. (citing Howell v. Advantage RN, LLC, No. 17-CV-0883 JLS
36
17-CV-1112 JLS (NLS)

1

(BLM), 2018 WL 3437123, at *2 (S.D. Cal. July 17, 2018); Tourgeman v. Collins Fin.

2

Servs., Inc., No. 08-CV-1392 JLS (NLS), 2011 WL 5025152, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 21,

3

2011)). “Moreover, CoreCivic’s denial of the existence of the policies and practices

4

identified by Plaintiffs create ‘a viable common question’ of whether such a policy existed,

5

‘and the truth or falsity of that claim will drive the resolution of this case.’” Id. (citing Ruiz

6

v. XPO Last Mile, Inc., No. 5CV2125 JLS (KSC), 2016 WL 4515859, at *7 (S.D. Cal.

7

Feb. 1, 2016)).

8

Overtime Wages: The Court concludes that Plaintiffs have met their burden for class

9

certification of establishing that Defendant implemented common policies and practices in

10

California as to the failure to pay overtime wages. Plaintiffs have introduced several of

11

Defendant’s policies, handbooks, and a VWP Agreement Form. See Ridley Decl. Exs. 9,

12

11, 12, 14, 19, 21, 24, 27. The VWP is among the “standard policies” created by template

13

by Defendant’s own Facility Support Center’s policies and procedures department from

14

which Defendant’s facilities cannot “opt out.” See Ridley Decl. Ex. 3 at 49:21–51:147

15

54:24–55:13, 59:1–5, 68:1–9, 75:9–25, 77:13–17. Not only do these policies not provide

16

for payment of overtime, see generally Ridley Decl. Exs. 9, 12, 14, 19, 21, 24, 27, but it is

17

clear that no overtime wages—if earned—were ever paid because “[c]ompensation [was]

18

$1.00 per day.” Ridley Decl. Ex. 9. Accordingly, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs have

19

established a uniform policy as to the payment of overtime wages. 11 See Alba v. Papa

20

John’s USA, Inc., No. CV 05-7487 GAF (CTX), 2007 WL 953849, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Feb.

21

7, 2007); see also id. at *2 (“[To the extent d]efendant[] contend[s] that the policy was

22

applied . . . in accordance with California . . . law, that contention goes to the merits of the

23

dispute and not to the question of whether common issues predominate”) (citing Eisen v.

24

Carlisle & Jacquelin, 417 U.S. 156, 177–78 (1974); Staton, 327 F.3d at 954).

25

///

26
27
28

11

The Court reiterates that this issue is distinct from that of whether Plaintiffs have established their
entitlement to overtime wages, i.e., whether there exist uniform policies requiring detainees to work
overtime. See infra Section II.C.1.b.
37
17-CV-1112 JLS (NLS)

1

Rest and Meal Breaks: The Court concludes, however, that Plaintiffs have failed to

2

establish a uniform policy as to the provision of meal and rest breaks. To establish the

3

existence of uniform policies, Plaintiffs cite to their own declarations and the deposition

4

testimony of Jason Ellis and Fred Figueroa, two of Defendant’s employees. See ECF No.

5

87 at 7 (citing ECF No. 84-3 ¶¶ 7–9; ECF No. 84-4 ¶ 7; Ridley Decl. Ex. 3 (ECF No.

6

85-4) at 129:23–130:15; Ridley Decl. Ex. 6 (ECF No. 85-7) at 34:2–8). Mr. Owino, for

7

example, attests that, as a member of the kitchen crew, he received only one, thirty-minute

8

meal “break,” during which he was required to prepare his own meal, and no rest breaks

9

while working a 3:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. shift. ECF No. 84-3 ¶ 7. As a chemical porter

10

and cleaner, he would work shifts of an unspecified length with “no scheduled rest or meal

11

breaks.” ECF No. 84-4 ¶¶ 8–9. Similarly, Mr. Gomez worked as a cleaner for shifts of an

12

unspecified length without “scheduled rest or meal breaks.” ECF No. 84-4 ¶ 7. Mr. Ellis

13

testified both that he was “not sure if there are -- there are breaks or not” and that he was

14

“sure there would be breaks, some breaks at least” but that he “d[id]n’t know the length of

15

those breaks or -- or the duration.” Ridley Decl. Ex. 3 at 129:23–130:15. Mr. Figueroa

16

testified that the “outside crew” works between 7:30 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. with “a lunch break

17

in the middle” and “no regularly scheduled break.” Ridley Decl. Ex. 6 at 34:2–8.

18

On this record, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs have failed to establish a uniform

19

policy as to the denial of rest and meal breaks. In the absence of a written policy, “Plaintiffs

20

must show ‘substantial evidence’ of a systematic policy” depriving detainees of rest and

21

meal breaks. See Nevarez v. Costco Wholesale Corp., No. 2:19-CV-03454-SVW-SK, 2019

22

WL 7421960, at *7 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 26, 2019) (citing In re AutoZone, 289 F.R.D. at 539;

23

Brinker Rest. Corp. v. Super. Ct., 53 Cal. 4th 1004, 1051 (2012)). As discussed above, see

24

supra Section II.B.3.a.1, Plaintiffs have failed to meet this burden. Indeed, Plaintiffs have

25

introduced no evidence that detainees in the VWP holding positions other than the morning

26

kitchen shift were deprived of a legally mandated rest or meal break. See id. As for that

27

one shift, Plaintiffs have introduced the sworn testimony of only one detainee, Mr. Owino,

28

to support an allegedly systemic policy of depriving those detainees of legally mandated
38
17-CV-1112 JLS (NLS)

1

breaks. ECF No. 84-3 ¶ 7. The Court cannot conclude that Mr. Owino’s testimony as to

2

his “normal shift,” see id. ¶ 6, amounts to “substantial evidence,” particularly given the

3

testimony of D. Topasna, Chief of Unit Management at the San Diego Correctional Facility

4

(“SDCF”) and OMDC, see Def.’s Ex. at 472 ¶ 3, that Defendant’s practice was that the

5

breakfast shift went from 3 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. with “a meal break and . . . multiple rest

6

periods.” 12 Id. at 479 ¶ 39. The Court therefore concludes that, based on the current record,

7

Plaintiffs have failed to establish that Defendant has a uniform policy or practice of denying

8

detainees legally mandated rest and meal breaks.

9

ii.

Forced Labor Classes: Sanitation and Discipline Policies

10

Defendant also contends that Plaintiffs have failed to introduce significant proof that

11

the putative class members were subjected to uniform sanitation and disciplinary policies

12

that forced detainees to clean common areas under threat of discipline. See ECF No. 118

13

at 25–26. Specifically, the written policies themselves require only that the detainees clean

14

their assigned living areas, whereas detainees in the VWP program are required to clean

15

the common areas, see id. at 25, and detainees are not disciplined with segregation for

16

failing to clean. See id. at 25–26. Further, the only evidence that detainees are forced to

17

clean common areas under threat of disciplinary segregation comes from the declarations

18

of four detainees, which “is not ‘significant proof’ that more than 120,000 detainees were

19

subject to their claimed policy.” See id. at 26.

20

Plaintiffs dispute Defendant’s reading of the sanitation policy, contending that there

21

is insufficient evidence that the cleaning policies of which Plaintiffs complain apply only

22

to those participating in the VWP. See ECF No. 127 at 3–4. Further, Defendant’s own

23

witness confirmed that “any of the types of discipline is possible,” see id. at 4 (citing Ridley

24

Decl. Ex. 3 at 157:5–16), and this threat of discipline was conveyed to all detainees at

25

intake through the admission handbook and reinforced through Defendant’s enforcement

26
27
28

12

Although not evidence, this is consistent with Defendant’s counsel’s representation at the hearing that
whether breaks were provided was determined by the individual supervising officer. See Tr. at
31:6–33:17.
39
17-CV-1112 JLS (NLS)

1

of the policy, as attested to by half-a-dozen detainees. See id. at 5 (citing Pl.’s Exs. 27–29;

2

Ortiz Decl. ¶ 4; Nunez Decl. ¶ 4; Owino Decl. ¶¶ 23–24; Gomez Decl. ¶¶ 19–20;

3

Santibanez Decl. ¶¶ 3–4; Jones Decl. ¶¶ 3–8).

4

The Court concludes that Plaintiffs sufficiently have demonstrated for purposes of

5

class certification that Defendant implemented common sanitation and discipline policies

6

that together may have coerced detainees to clean areas of Defendant’s facilities beyond

7

the personal housekeeping tasks enumerated in the ICE PBNDS. First, Defendant’s

8

sanitation policies provide that “[a]ll detainees/inmates assigned to a unit are responsible

9

for maintaining the common living area in a clean and sanitary manner” and that

10

“[d]etainee/inmate workers will be assigned to each area on a permanent basis to perform

11

the daily cleaning routine of the common area,” including trash removal, sweeping and

12

mopping, cleaning and scrubbing of bathroom facilities, and wiping off of furniture.

13

Ridley Decl. Ex. 12 (ECF No. 87-7) at 1–2 (OMDC in California); Ridley Decl. Exs. 13

14

(ECF No. 87-8) and 18 (ECF No. 87-13) at 1–2 (Stewart Detention Center in Georgia);

15

Ridley Decl. Exs. 14 (ECF No. 87-9) and 19 (ECF No. 87-14) at 1–2 (SDCF in California);

16

Ridley Decl. Ex. 15 (ECF No. 87-10) at 1–2 (North Georgia Detention Center); Ridley

17

Decl. Ex. 16 (ECF No. 87-11) at 1–2 (Northeast Ohio Correctional Center); Ridley Decl.

18

Ex. 17 (ECF No. 87-12) at 1–2 (T. Don Hutto Residential Center in Texas); Ridley Decl.

19

Ex. 20 (ECF No. 87-15) at 1–2 (La Palma Correctional Center in Arizona). Although

20

Defendant is adamant that these policies “do[] not require detainees to clean the common

21

areas of the housing units,” see, e.g., ECF No. 118 at 4 (emphasis in original), this is not

22

clear from the face of the policies. For example, as for the “COMMON LIVING AREAS,”

23

the policies note not only that “[a]ll detainees/inmates assigned to a unit are responsible for

24

maintaining the common living area in a clean and sanitary manner,” but also that “[t]he

25

officer assigned to that unit will see that all materials needed to carry out this cleaning

26

assignment are provided.” See, e.g., Ridley Decl. Ex. 12 at 1. Further, the policies outline

27

a “CLEANING PROGRAM FOR OTHER AREAS,” indicating that “[a]ll floors will be

28

swept and mopped on a daily basis,” “[t]oilet bowls and sinks will be cleaned daily,” “[t]he
40
17-CV-1112 JLS (NLS)

1

showers and floors will be mopped and scrubbed daily,” “[a]ll furniture will be dusted on

2

a daily basis and cleaned when necessary,” “[a]ll trash will be emptied daily,” “[w]indows

3

will be washed weekly or more often when erquired,” “[w]alls and doors will be wiped

4

daily,” and “[a]ll equipment will be dusted or cleaned on a daily basis.” Id. at 1–2. There

5

is no indication from the face of the policies that these tasks are to be performed only by

6

those participating in the VWP, and there exists a dispute of fact based on the declarations

7

submitted by staff of Defendant, who testified that the sanitation policies did not require

8

detainees to clean up after others, see ECF No. 123 ¶¶ 6–21; ECF No. 118-2 at 68–70

9

¶¶ 5–20, 130–33 ¶¶ 9–25, 136–38 ¶¶ 6–20; ECF No. 118-5 at 466–69 ¶¶ 6–22, 473–6

10

¶¶ 6–23, and those submitted by several detainees, who testified that they were required—

11

separate and apart from the VWP—to clean common areas, including windows, floors,

12

toilets, sinks, showers, and furniture, without payment and under threat of punishment. See

13

ECF No. 84-3 ¶¶ 17–24; ECF No. 84-4 ¶¶ 13–20; ECF No. 84-5 ¶¶ 3–4, 6; ECF No. 84-6

14

¶¶ 3–4, 5. 13 As Plaintiffs note, the Court cannot resolve factual disputes of this nature at

15

this stage in the litigation. See ECF No. 127 at 11 (citing Howell v. Advantage RN, LLC,

16

No. 17-CV-0883 JLS (BLM), 2018 WL 3437123, at *2 (S.D. Cal. July 17, 2018)).

17

Second, Defendant’s policies and the declarations of putative class members support

18

Plaintiffs’ contention that Defendant may have procured this labor under threat of

19

punishment. For example, the Detainee Admission and Orientation Handbook for OMDC

20

indicates that “[i]t is expected that staff will receive your full cooperation while you are

21

in this facility,” Ridley Decl. Ex. 21 (ECF No. 85-22) at 8 (emphasis in original); detainees

22

are to “[o]bey all orders as given by staff members,” id.; and detainees are to “ADHERE

23

TO ALL OTHER RULES AS INSTRUCTED BY ANY STAFF MEMBER.” Id. at 39

24

(emphasis in original). As for disciplinary action, the OMDC handbook notes that

25

“[r]efusal to clean assigned living area” or “[r]efus[al] to obey a staff member/officer’s

26
27
28

13

There are two paragraphs numbered “5” in the Declaration of Jonathan Ortiz Dubon. The Court cites
to the second paragraph 5.
41
17-CV-1112 JLS (NLS)

1

order” may be sanctioned with, among other things, “[d]isciplinary transfer

2

(recommended),” “[d]isciplinary [s]egregation (up to 72 hours),” “[l]oss of privileges (e.g.,

3

commissary, vending machines, movies, recreation, etc.),” “[c]hange housing,” or

4

“[r]estrict to housing pod.” Id. at 45. The same recommended disciplinary actions can be

5

found in handbooks from other of Defendant’s facilities, both within and outside of

6

California. See Ridley Decl. Ex. 22 (ECF No. 85-23) at 29 (Florence Correctional Center

7

in Arizona); Ridley Decl. Ex. 23 (ECF No. 85-24) at 29 (SDCF in California); Ridley Decl.

8

Ex. 24 (ECF No. 85-25) at 49 (Laredo Processing Center in Texas); Ridley Decl. Ex. 25

9

(ECF No. 85-26) at 17 (Eloy Detention Center in Arizona); Ridley Decl. Ex. 26 (ECF No.

10

85-27) at 17 (Houston Processing Center in Texas). At this stage, this suffices to show that

11

Defendant had a uniform disciplinary policy that could reasonably be understood to have

12

subjected detainees to discipline for failure to comply with the uniform sanitation policy.

13

This conclusion is bolstered by the declarations of Plaintiffs and other putative class

14

members, who attest that failure to abide by an order to clean the commons areas could

15

result in disciplinary action consistent with the uniform disciplinary policy or even other

16

retaliatory measures. See, e.g., ECF No. 84-3 ¶¶ 19, 23–24; ECF No. 84-4 ¶¶ 15, 19–20;

17

ECF No. 84-5 ¶¶ 3–4; ECF No. 84-6 ¶¶ 3–4.

18

The Court therefore concludes that, for purposes of class certification, Plaintiffs

19

sufficiently have established that Defendant instituted uniform sanitation and disciplinary

20

policies that were applied class-wide and, taken together, may have coerced detainees

21

under threat of discipline into performing cleaning duties beyond those permitted by ICE.

22

b.

The California Labor Law Class

23

Plaintiffs urge that the claims of the California Labor Law Class “all turn on a

24

common legal question: whether ICE detainees that worked through the VWP at

25

CoreCivic’s facilities in California are employees of CoreCivic under California law and

26

entitled to the protections for employees set forth in the California Labor Code and the

27

IWC’s Wage Order No. 5-2001.” ECF No. 87 at 17. Although Defendant “does not dispute

28

that [whether detainees who participate in the VWP are CoreCivic’s employees under
42
17-CV-1112 JLS (NLS)

1

California law] is a common question,” it does contest whether it is “a ‘significant aspect

2

of the case.’” ECF No. 118 at 32 (quoting Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1022). Defendant asserts

3

that “[t]here are many other individual questions needed to fully resolve the putative class

4

member[s’] claims,” including detainees’ status as authorized or unauthorized aliens, hours

5

worked, whether detainees received meal and/or rest periods, the amount of damages, and

6

the amount of any offset. See id. at 32–33.

7

Plaintiffs claim that Defendant “misses the mark entirely” because “Plaintiffs and

8

the putative class members were subjected to the same generally applicable policies and

9

practices while involuntarily confined at CoreCivic as ICE detainees,” meaning “[t]heir

10

claims depend on whether the challenged policies and practices are unlawful and will

11

‘prevail or fail in unison’ based on the Court’s adjudication of that issue.” ECF No. 127 at

12

12 (citing Amgen Inc. v. Conn. Ret. Plans & Tr. Funds, 568 U.S. 455, 460 (2013)).

13

Plaintiffs are correct that “[c]ertification is appropriate where the legality of a

14

particular policy presents a ‘significant question of law’ that is ‘apt to drive the resolution

15

of the litigation.’” Boyd v. Bank of Am. Corp., 300 F.R.D. 431, 437 (C.D. Cal. 2014)

16

(quoting Abdullah v. U.S. Sec. Assoc., 731 F.3d 952, 963 (9th Cir. 2013) (citing Wal-

17

Mart, 564 U.S. at 350)); see also Moore v. Ulta Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance, Inc., 311

18

F.R.D. 590, 604–05 (C.D. Cal. 2015) (“The factual issue of whether [the defendant’s]

19

policies actually require—or are interpreted to require—[the alleged labor law violation]

20

is one that is common to the class as a whole, and it is capable of resolution

21

by common proof.”); Alba, 2007 WL 953849, at *14 (“Whether the [defendant’s] policy

22

satisfies the right to meal and rest periods under California law is a question of law . . .

23

common to the proposed subclass.”). Nevertheless, the Court must “take into consideration

24

all factors that militate in favor of, or against, class certification.” Vinole v. Countrywide

25

Home Loans, Inc., 571 F.3d 935, 946 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing In re Wells Fargo Home

26

Mortg. Overtime Pay Litig., 571 F.3d 953, 958–59 (9th Cir. 2009)).

27

“Considering whether ‘questions of law or fact common to the class predominate’

28

begins, of course, with the elements of the underlying cause of action.” Soares v. Flowers
43
17-CV-1112 JLS (NLS)

1

Foods, Inc., 320 F.R.D. 464, 478 (N.D. Cal. 2017) (quoting Erica P. John Fund, 563 U.S.

2

at 809). “[T]he Court identifies the substantive issues related to plaintiff’s claims . . . then

3

considers the proof necessary to establish each element of the claim or defense; and

4

considers how these issues would be tried.” Id. (quoting Gaudin v. Saxon Mortg. Servs.,

5

Inc., 297 F.R.D. 417, 426 (N.D. Cal. 2013)). “The predominance inquiry requires that

6

plaintiff demonstrate that common questions predominate as to each cause of action for

7

which plaintiff seeks class certification.” Gaudin, 297 F.R.D. at 426 (citing Amchem

8

Prods., 521 U.S. at 620). Further, “[a] court evaluating predominance ‘must determine

9

whether the elements necessary to establish liability,’” here, employee status, “‘are

10

susceptible to common proof or, if not, whether there are ways to manage effectively proof

11

of any element that may require individualized evidence.’” Villalpando v. Exel Direct Inc.,

12

303 F.R.D. 588, 608 (N.D. Cal. 2014) (quoting Ayala v. Antelope Valley Newspapers,

13

Inc., 59 Cal. 4th 522, 533 (2014)).

14

Here, Plaintiffs urge that their “claims for violations of the California Labor Code

15

and violations of the IWC’s Wage Order No. 5-2001 all hinge on the common legal issue

16

of whether CoreCivic’s classification of ICE detainees that worked through the VWP as

17

‘volunteers’ was correct or whether the ICE detainees were employees of CoreCivic under

18

California law.” See ECF No. 87 at 18. Strictly speaking, this does not suffice to meet

19

Plaintiffs’ burden. See, e.g., Abikar v. Bristol Bay Native Corp., No. 317CV01036

20

GPCAGS, 2018 WL 6593747, at *7 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 14, 2018) (concluding that the

21

plaintiffs failed to meet their burden of establishing predominance under Rule 23(b)(3)

22

where their “predominance assertion ma[de] no reference to their underlying claims”);

23

accord Celena King v. Great Am. Chicken Corp., No. CV 17-4510-GW(ASX), 2019 WL

24

6348463, at *3 (C.D. Cal. July 18, 2019) (denying class certification where the plaintiff

25

failed to address predominance as to each cause of action). Nonetheless, “public policy

26

favor[s] disposition of cases on their merits,” Hernandez v. City of El Monte, 138 F.3d 393,

27

399 (9th Cir. 1998); consequently, the Court analyzes each of Plaintiff’s claims.

28

///
44
17-CV-1112 JLS (NLS)

1

i.

Minimum Wage

2

Plaintiffs’ fourth cause of action is for failure to pay minimum wage in violation of

3

California Labor Code sections 1194, 1197, and 1197.1 and IWC Wage Order No. 5-2001.

4

See FAC ¶¶ 71–75. Whether asserted under the California Labor Code or the UCL, see

5

supra Section II.B.3.a.ii, the Court concludes that common issues predominate as to the

6

minimum wage claim.

7

Here, there are common, predominating questions concerning Defendant’s

8

classification of detainees participating in the VWP as volunteers and, consequently,

9

whether those detainees were paid according to California’s minimum wage statutes and

10

regulations. Previously, the Court expressed concern regarding whether this claim was

11

susceptible to common proof, see, e.g., Tr. at 6:17–20; however, upon further reflection

12

and review of the record, the Court concludes that “[m]ethods of common proof could be

13

devised” to determine whether detainees participating in the VWP were paid a minimum

14

wage. See Kamar v. Radio Shack Corp., 254 F.R.D. 387, 402 (C.D. Cal. 2008), aff’d, 375

15

F. App’x 734 (9th Cir. 2010). Although Defendant does not maintain detailed time-

16

keeping records for its detainees, cf. Novoa v. GEO Group, Inc., No. EDCV172514

17

JGBSHKX, 2019 WL 7195331, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 26, 2019), there still exist records

18

for days on which detainees worked, see, e.g., Ridley Decl. Exs. 45–50, and—even if the

19

records currently before the Court are not complete—there appear to be set schedules for

20

the various positions held by participants in the VWP. See, e.g., Def.’s Exs. at 479–80

21

¶¶ 39–42.

22

participants in the VWP were paid less than the minimum wage—and by how much—

23

based on the difference between the payment received and the number of hours per shift

24

for the position, thereby “avoid[ing] testimony by every class member.” See Kamar, 254

25

F.R.D. at 402. The Court therefore concludes that there exist common, predominating

26

questions for the California Labor Law Class as to Plaintiffs’ minimum wage cause of

27

action.

28

///

Together, this evidence may allow the trier of fact to determine which

45
17-CV-1112 JLS (NLS)

1

ii.

Overtime

2

Plaintiff’s fifth cause of action is for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of

3

California Labor Code sections 204, 510, and 1194 and IWC Wage Order No. 5-2001. See

4

FAC ¶¶ 76–79.

5

establishing that common issues predominate as to this claim.

The Court concludes that Plaintiffs have not met their burden of

6

Not only have Plaintiffs failed to establish that there exists a common policy that

7

detainees were required to work overtime, see supra Section II.B.3.a.i, but it is not clear to

8

the Court that Plaintiffs’ claim is susceptible to common proof. Should the Court determine

9

that the members of the California Labor Law Class were employees rather than detainees,

10

there must be some means of determining on a class-wide basis which detainees are entitled

11

to overtimes wages, which is a question of liability and not damages. In the absence of a

12

written policy or schedule mandating overtime or substantial evidence that the shifts

13

actually worked by detainees entitled them to overtime, Plaintiffs have failed to establish

14

that the overtime claim is susceptible to common proof. 14 See, e.g., Washington v. Joe’s

15

Crab Shack, 271 F.R.D. 629, 642 (N.D. Cal. 2010) (“Plaintiff has provided no evidence of

16

any company-wide or class-wide policy of requiring ‘off-the-clock’ work, and the

17

individualized assessment necessary to ascertain whether there were in fact any employees

18

who were told to work ‘off-the-clock’ would not be susceptible to common proof.”).

19

This issue is exacerbated by the breadth of the defined California Labor Class as

20

“[a]ll ICE detainees . . . detained at a CoreCivic facility located in California . . . [who]

21

worked through CoreCivic’s voluntary work program.” See ECF No. 87 at 14. Essentially,

22

Plaintiffs seek to certify a class comprised of an untold number of unenumerated positions,

23

including cleaners, laundry workers, kitchen crews, clerical workers, barbers, librarians,

24

and landscapers.

See FAC ¶ 14.

“Because it is highly unlikely that all positions

25
26
14

27
28

To be clear, the Court does not conclude that Plaintiffs cannot establish that their overtime claims are
susceptible to common proof. For example, the overtime claims may be susceptible to common proof if
Plaintiffs can adduce additional evidence as to a written or unspoken policy applying throughout
California requiring VWP participants to work overtime.
46
17-CV-1112 JLS (NLS)

1

and job duties at Defendant[’s facilitie]s are identical, and that all Class Members would

2

be seeking the same relief, the Court is not persuaded[, at least on the current record,] that

3

there are no dissimilarities in the proposed class that could ‘impede the generation of

4

common answers apt to drive the resolution of the litigation.’” See Lusby v. Gamestop

5

Inc., 297 F.R.D. 400, 410–11 (N.D. Cal. 2013) (quoting Wal-Mart, 564 U.S. at 350

6

(quoting Richard A. Nagareda, Class Certification in the Age of Aggregate Proof, 84

7

N.Y.U. L. Rev. 97, 132 (2009))) (citing Nielson v. Sports Authority, No. C 11-4724 SBA,

8

2012 WL 5941614, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 27, 2012); Tijero v. Aaron Brothers, Inc., No. C

9

10-01089 SBA, 2013 WL 60464, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 2, 2013); Kelley v. SBC, Inc., No.

10

C 97-2729 CW, 1998 WL 1794379, at *14 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 18, 1998)).

11

For all these reasons, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs have failed to establish that

12

common issues predominate as to the California Labor Law Class for the overtime claims.

13

iii.

Meal Breaks

14

Plaintiff’s sixth cause of action is for failure to provide mandated meal breaks in

15

violation of California Labor Code sections 226.7 and 512 and IWC Wage Order No.

16

5-2001. FAC ¶¶ 80–83. Again, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs have not met their

17

burden of establishing that common issues predominate as to this claim.

18

As with the overtime claims, see supra Section II.C.1.b.ii, Plaintiffs have failed to

19

introduce evidence of a common policy that detainees in the VWP were denied meal

20

breaks, see supra Section II.B.3.a.i, or that the meal break claims are susceptible to

21

common proof. Should the Court determine that the members of the California Labor Law

22

Class were employees rather than detainees, there must be some means of determining on

23

a class-wide basis which detainees were entitled to a meal break and which detainees did

24

not receive the mandated meal break. Again, these are questions going to liability and not

25

only to damages. Because Plaintiffs have failed to introduce evidence concerning the

26

entitlement to meal breaks for the various positions held through the VWP or a common

27

policy or systematic practice concerning the deprivation of such breaks, they have failed

28

to establish that common issues predominate as to meal break claims of the California
47
17-CV-1112 JLS (NLS)

1

Labor Law Class. See, e.g., Chavez v. AmeriGas Propane, Inc., No. CV1305813MMM

2

MANX, 2015 WL 12859721, at *14 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 11, 2015) (“[T]his does not suffice to

3

show that the company had a uniform corporate policy of preventing [the class members]

4

from taking required meal breaks, such that a violation of the wage and hour laws could be

5

proved on a classwide basis.”); Washington, 271 F.R.D. at 641–42 (“[The defendant’s]

6

time records will not show when . . . breaks were taken . . . . For this reason, individualized

7

analyses must be conducted to determine whether and when . . . breaks were not taken.

8

Moreover . . . , the inquiries would not answer the critical question of why rest breaks were

9

not taken—a question that will necessitate an individualized inquiry.”) (footnote omitted)

10

(emphasis in original). Accordingly, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs have failed to

11

establish that common issues predominate as to the California Labor Law Class for the

12

meal break claims. 15

13

iv.

Rest Breaks

14

Plaintiff’s seventh cause of action is for failure to provide mandated rest breaks in

15

violation of California Labor Code section 226.7 and IWC Wage Order No. 5-2001. FAC

16

¶¶ 84–86. For the same reasons the Court concludes that Plaintiffs have failed to establish

17

that Plaintiffs have not met their burden of establishing that common issues predominate

18

as to the meal break claims, see supra Section II.C.1.b.iii, the Court also concludes that

19

Plaintiffs have failed to establish that common issues predominate as to the California

20

Labor Law Class for the rest break claims.

21

v.

Wage Statements

22

Plaintiffs’ eighth cause of action is for failure to provide timely and accurate wage

23

statements in violation of California Labor Code section 226. FAC ¶¶ 87–93. Defendant

24

does not oppose certification of the California Labor Law Class as to this claim, see

25

generally ECF No. 118; see also ECF No. 127 at 1, arguing only that it is time-barred

26
27
28

15

Again, the Court reiterates that it does not conclude that Plaintiffs cannot establish that their meal break
claims are susceptible to common proof, see supra note 15, although the weight of authority tends to
indicate that it may be more difficult for Plaintiffs to meet their burden as to these claims.
48
17-CV-1112 JLS (NLS)

1

because Plaintiffs seek only penalties. See, e.g., ECF No. 118 at 17. The Court concludes

2

that whether Defendant provided wage statements to the participants in the VWP is

3

susceptible to common proof. Accordingly, to the extent the wage statement claims are

4

not time-barred, 16 the Court concludes that there exist common, predominating questions

5

for the California Labor Law Class as to Plaintiffs’ claims concerning Defendant’s failure

6

to provide wage statements.

7

vi.

Payment of Compensation Upon Termination

8

Plaintiffs’ ninth cause of action is for failure to pay compensation upon

9

termination/waiting time penalties pursuant to California Labor Code sections 201 through

10

203. FAC ¶¶ 94–96. Defendant does not appear to contend that common issues do not

11

predominate, see generally ECF No. 118 at 32–33; rather, Defendant appears to contest

12

only the timeliness of this claim. See id. at 17; see also supra Section II.B.3.a.ii. The Court

13

concludes that whether Defendant paid compensation to the participants in the VWP upon

14

termination is susceptible to common proof. Accordingly, the Court concludes that there

15

exist common, predominating questions for the California Labor Law Class as to Plaintiffs’

16

claims concerning Defendant’s failure to pay compensation upon termination.

17

vii.

Unlawful Conditions of Employment

18

Plaintiffs’ tenth cause of action is for imposition of unlawful terms or conditions of

19

employment pursuant to California Labor Code section 432.5. FAC ¶¶ 97–101. As with

20

the wage statement claims, see supra Section II.C.1.b.v, Defendant does not oppose

21

certification of the California Labor Law Class as to this claim, see generally ECF No. 118;

22

see also ECF No. 127 at 1, although it does contend that the only applicable underlying

23

claim is for failure to pay minimum wages. 17 See, e.g., Tr. at 38:18–39:2. The Court

24
25
26
27
28

16

Defendant contends that the wage statement claims are time-barred because Plaintiffs appear to seek
only penalties. See, e.g., Tr. at 37:21–38:2 (citing FAC ¶ 92). Whether Plaintiffs seek solely penalties or
other remedies for their wage statement claims is beyond the scope of the Certification Motion.

17

Plaintiffs allege that the agreement “include[d] numerous terms that are prohibited by law, including
but not limited to agreeing to work for less than minimum wage or without appropriate overtime
49
17-CV-1112 JLS (NLS)

1

concludes that whether Defendant has imposed unlawful conditions of employment upon

2

the participants in the VWP for the alleged violations of the California Labor Code that are

3

susceptible to common proof is itself susceptible to common proof. Accordingly, the Court

4

concludes that there exist common, predominating questions for the California Labor Law

5

Class as to Plaintiffs’ claims concerning Defendant’s imposition of unlawful conditions of

6

employment.

7

viii. Conclusion

8

The Court therefore concludes, pursuant to any limitations discussed above, that

9

Plaintiffs have established that common questions predominate as to the California Labor

10

Law Class’s causes of action for failure to pay minimum wage, failure to provide wage

11

statements, failure to pay compensation upon termination, and imposition of unlawful

12

conditions of employment based on those violations, as well as any viable derivative causes

13

of action. See infra Section II.C.1.e.

14

c.

The National Forced Labor Class

15

Plaintiffs argue that the claims of the National Forced Labor Class hinge upon

16

whether “CoreCivic’s policy and practice of forcing ICE detainees to clean areas of the

17

facility above and beyond personal housekeeping tasks enumerated in the ICE PBNDS

18

under treat of discipline, including solitary confinement, . . . constitute[s] a violation of the

19

Federal TVPA’s prohibition on obtaining labor or services by means of force or serious

20

harm[;] threats of force or serious harm[;] or by means of any scheme, plan, or pattern

21

intended to cause a person to believe that serious harm would result if that person did not

22

perform such labor or services.” ECF No. 87 at 21. Defendant responds that “a common

23

question cannot simply be whether all putative class members have ‘suffered a violation of

24

the same provision of law,’” ECF No. 118 at 29 (citing Wal-Mart, 564 U.S. at 350), and

25

that “resolving whether each putative class member was in fact a victim of a TVPA . . .

26
27
28

compensation.” FAC ¶ 99. Whether the other claims the Court has certified as part of the California
Labor Law Class, namely, the wage statement claims and failure to pay compensation upon termination
claims, were among the terms in the written agreement is beyond the purview of this Order.
50
17-CV-1112 JLS (NLS)

1

violation requires the resolution of many individualized inquiries that are particular to each

2

class member,” essentially, “why did you work?,” a question that “will require delving into

3

each class member’s subjective state of mind.” Id. at 29–30. Plaintiffs reply that their

4

“claims under the CA and Federal TVPA do not turn on ‘individualized inquiries[,]’”

5

because “[w]here liability depends on a threat of disciplinary action, the statutes both call

6

for the application of an objective standard to determine whether a ‘reasonable person’—

7

in this case, ICE detainees involuntarily confined in a prison-like facility—would perform

8

the work mandated by CoreCivic.”

9

§ 236.1(h)(4); 18 U.S.C. § 1589(c)(2)).

ECF No. 127 at 12 (citing Cal. Penal Code

10

The Court allowed both sides to present additional briefing on Novoa, 2019 WL

11

7195331, in which the district court certified classes similar to the proposed California and

12

National Forced Labor Classes here. See id. at *10, *16 & n.11, *20; see also ECF Nos.

13

153, 160, 164. In its supplemental brief, Defendant urges the Court to conclude that Novoa

14

is distinguishable based on the fact that “there is no undisputed written policy in this case”

15

and that “Novoa adopted Menocal[ v. GEO Group, Inc., 320 F.R.D. 258 (D. Colo. 2017)]’s

16

predominance analysis, which is . . . inapplicable here” because the Plaintiffs here “do not

17

even allege that they were aware of the written policies or worked because of them.” See

18

ECF No. 164 at 4–5. Further, Menocal was “based on unique Tenth Circuit jurisprudence

19

permitting classwide causation evidence . . . , which the Ninth Circuit has not adopted,” id.

20

at 5 n.4 (citing CGC Holding Co. v. Broad & Cassel, 773 F.3d 1076 (10th Cir. 2014);

21

Poulos v. Caesars World, Inc., 379 F.3d 668 (9th Cir. 2004)), and “[w]hether the labor was

22

obtained ‘by means of’ or ‘accomplished through’ the threat is still an individualized,

23

subjective inquiry.” Id. at 5 n.5 (citing David v. Signal Int’l, LLC, No. 08-1220, 2012 WL

24

10759668, at *20–22 (E.D. La. Jan. 4, 2012)).

25

Finally, on March 19, 2020, Defendant requested that the Court consider the recent

26

decision in Barrientos v. CoreCivic, Inc., No. 18-15081, 2020 WL 964358 (11th Cir. Feb.

27

28, 2020), in which the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of Defendant’s

28

motion to dismiss a TVPA claim asserted by ICE detainees in Georgia and “h[e]ld that the
51
17-CV-1112 JLS (NLS)

1

TVPA applies to private for-profit contractors operating federal immigration detention

2

facilities.” Id. at *9; see also ECF No. 172. 18 Defendants contend that Barrientos

3

“supports Defendant’s argument that the putative National Forced Labor Class cannot be

4

certified because each class member must individually establish that their allegation of

5

forced labor rises to the level of an actionable claim under the [TVPA], a determination

6

that cannot be made for all class members in one stroke.” ECF No. 172 at 1. Not

7

surprisingly, Plaintiffs respond that “Barrientos supports the Court’s tentative decision to

8

certify Plaintiffs’ Forced Labor [C]lasses” and that Defendant “misrepresents the holding

9

of Barrientos[,] . . . which was expressly ‘limited to the legal question of the TVPA’s

10

applicability to private contractors operating federal immigration detention facilities[.]’”

11

ECF No. 173 at 1 (quoting Barrientos, 2020 WL 964358, at *1).

12

Having carefully reviewed the Parties’ arguments and the additional authorities

13

submitted by each side, the Court ultimately agrees with Plaintiffs. First, the Court

14

concludes that Barrientos offers little guidance here. Not only is Barrientos not binding

15

on this Court, but Plaintiffs are correct that “the discrete legal issue before [the Eleventh

16

Circuit]” has no bearing on the Parties’ arguments for and against class certification. See

17

2020 WL 964358 at *6; see also ECF No. 173 at 1. Defendant’s attempt to divine from

18

Barrientos whether the Eleventh Circuit would conclude that individual questions

19

predominate such that class certification of a TVPA would be improper is nothing more

20

than unsubstantiated tea-leaf reading and is therefore of minimal relevance here.

21

Second, the Court rejects Defendant’s contention that “[w]hether the labor was

22

obtained ‘by means of’ or ‘accomplished through’ the threat is still an individualized,

23

subjective inquiry.” See ECF No. 164 at 5 n.5 (citing David, 2012 WL 10759668, at

24

*20–22). As an initial matter, the court in David concluded that “individual issues with

25
26
18

27
28

To the extent Defendant requests the opportunity to further brief Barrientos, see ECF No. 172 at 3, the
Court only granted additional briefing on Novoa at the request of Defendant, see Tr. at 57:21–22, whereas
Plaintiffs have indicated their belief that additional briefing on Barrientos is not required. See ECF No.
173 at 1–2. The Court therefore DENIES Defendant’s request to further brief Barrientos.
52
17-CV-1112 JLS (NLS)

1

respect to coercion and consent will predominate Plaintiffs’ § 1589 forced labor claims.”

2

See 2012 WL 10759668, at *22. The Court is not convinced that this analysis applies

3

within the Ninth Circuit, where a TVPA claim requires the plaintiff to establish that the

4

employer intended to cause the victim to believe that he or she would suffer serious harm

5

by means of an objectively, sufficiently serious threat of harm. See United States v. Dann,

6

652 F.3d 1160, 1170 (9th Cir. 2011); accord Tanedo v. E. Baton Rouge Par. Sch. Bd., No.

7

LA CV10-01172 JAK, 2011 WL 7095434, at *8 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 12, 2011); see also Novoa,

8

2019 WL 7195331, at *16 n.11.

9

Even if coercion and/or consent were a relevant determination such that there exists

10

a subjective inquiry, however, the court in David acknowledged that a TVPA claim may

11

be suitable for class certification under certain circumstances resembling those here. See

12

2012 WL 10759668, at *21. Indeed, the court in David concluded that certification was

13

not appropriate on the facts of that case, which “involve[d] paid workers who in fact could

14

leave their jobs at any time, . . . were for the most part paid well, free to come and go as

15

they pleased, and some [of whom] even took vacations and bought cars.” Id. Further,

16

“the ‘threats’ that Plaintiffs allege were made to compel them to work were often made to

17

individuals, not to the class as a whole,” meaning that “[t]he pressure to work for [the

18

defendant] arguably came at least in part from a set of circumstances that each plaintiff

19

individually brought upon himself.” Id. Here, by contrast, the putative class members

20

were not paid more than a dollar or two a day and were not free to come and go as they

21

pleased. See, e.g., FAC ¶ 10. Further, Plaintiffs allege that the threats were communicated

22

to the class as a whole through Defendant’s uniform disciplinary policy. Id. ¶ 42(c).

23

Consequently, David does not support Defendant’s contention.

24

On the other hand, two district courts applying Ninth Circuit precedent have

25

concluded that individual issues do not predominate where “the class members share a

26

large number of common attributes— . . . allowing the fact-finder to use a common

27

‘reasonable person’ standard for all class members.” See Tanedo, 2011 WL 7095434, at

28

*8; see also Novoa, 2019 WL 7195331, at *16 (adopting analysis of Menocal); Menocal,
53
17-CV-1112 JLS (NLS)

1

320 F.R.D. at 267 (“The circumstances here—namely the class members’ detainment, the

2

imposition of a uniform policy, and the numerous other questions common to the class—

3

certainly make it beneficial to permit such an inference [of causation on a class-wide

4

basis].”). As in Tanedo and Novoa, the putative class members share a large number of

5

common attributes, including that they are immigrants who are or were involuntarily

6

detained in Defendant’s facilities and subjected to common sanitation and disciplinary

7

policies.

8

Third and finally, the Court disagrees with Defendant that the Ninth Circuit does not

9

permit “classwide causation evidence,” such that Novoa and Menocal are inapplicable. See

10

ECF No. 164 at 5 n.4 (citing CGC Holding, 773 F.3d 1076; Poulos, 379 F.3d at 668). The

11

cases on which Defendant relies, CGC Holding and Poulos, were both Racketeer

12

Influences and Corrupt Organizations cases. See CGC Holding, 773 F.3d at 1089–93;

13

Poulos, 379 F.3d at 664. To the extent those cases have any bearing in the TVPA context,

14

see Menocal, 320 F.R.D. at 267 n.5 (acknowledging that CGC Holding did “not dictate the

15

outcome in this matter”), the Ninth Circuit’s “narrow and case-specific” decision in Poulos

16

was based on its determination that “gambling is not a context in which [the court] can

17

assume that potential class members are always similarly situated.” 379 F.3d at 665–66.

18

In other contexts, such as consumer protection putative class actions, for example, the

19

Ninth Circuit has recognized that reliance or causation can be inferred on a class-wide basis

20

where the putative class members are similarly situated; in Walker v. Life Insurance

21

Company of the Southwest, No. 19-55241, 2020 WL 1329665 (9th Cir. Mar. 23, 2020), for

22

example, the Ninth Circuit reiterated that in the context of UCL actions “the operative

23

question has become whether the defendant so pervasively disseminated material

24

misrepresentations that all plaintiffs must have been exposed to them.” Id. at *5 (citing

25

Stearns v. Ticketmaster Corp., 655 F.3d 1013, 1020–21 (9th Cir. 2011), abrogated on other

26

grounds by Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 569 U.S. 27 (2013)). The sum total of these

27

authorities is that an inference of class-wide causation may be permissible where, as here,

28

///
54
17-CV-1112 JLS (NLS)

1

the putative class members share a large number of common attributes such that they are

2

similarly situated. As discussed above, the Court concludes that this is such a case.

3

As in Tanedo, “[c]ommon questions of fact include . . . whether Defendant[] utilized

4

threats of serious . . . harm to compel Plaintiffs to work” and “[c]ommon questions of law

5

include . . . whether Defendants’ conduct violated the TVPA,” answers to which “are

6

‘capable of classwide resolution[]’ and “will determine . . . if the Plaintiffs were threatened

7

with serious . . . harm, an issue central to the TVPA claims.” See 2011 WL 7095434, at *6

8

(quoting Wal-Mart, 564 U.S. at 350).

9

commonality and predominance requirements are satisfied as to the National Forced Labor

10

Accordingly, the Court concludes that the

Class.

11

d.

The California Forced Labor Class

12

Plaintiffs assert that the claims of the California Forced Labor Class “all depend on

13

resolution of . . . [w]hether CoreCivic’s policy and practice requiring ICE detainees in its

14

California facilities to clean areas of the facility above and beyond the personal

15

housekeeping tasks enumerated in the ICE PBNDS under threat of discipline constitutes

16

‘human trafficking’ within the meaning of California Penal Code § 236.1(a).” ECF No. 87

17

at 19. As with the National Forced Labor Class, Defendant contends that there are not

18

common questions of law and fact governing the California Forced Labor Class because

19

“the California facilities do not have a policy or practice of forcing detainees to clean

20

common areas under threat of disciplinary segregation” and “[t]he allegations of four

21

detainees is not ‘significant proof’ that ‘several thousands’ . . . of detainees in California

22

facilities were subject to their claimed policy.” ECF No. 118 at 27. “Furthermore,

23

resolving whether each putative class member was in fact a victim of a . . . California TVPA

24

violation requires the resolution of many individualized inquiries that are particular to each

25

class member.” Id. at 29.

26

For the same reasons the Court determines that Plaintiffs have established there are

27

common questions of law and fact that predominate as to the National Forced Labor Class,

28

///
55
17-CV-1112 JLS (NLS)

1

see supra Section III.C.1.c, the Court also determines that Plaintiffs have met their burden

2

as to commonality and predominance for the California Forced Labor Class.

3

e.

Derivative Claims

4

Plaintiffs’ third cause of action is for violation of the UCL, FAC ¶¶ 63–70; eleventh

5

cause of action is for negligence, id. ¶¶ 102–19; and twelfth cause of action is for unjust

6

enrichment. Id. ¶¶ 120–28. Plaintiffs acknowledge that each of these causes of action are

7

derivative of the claims for violations of California labor law, see, e.g., ECF No. 87 at 18,

8

and California and federal TVPA. See, e.g., id. at 20. Consequently, to the extent these

9

claims are causes of action not barred by the statute of limitations, 19 the Court concludes

10

that common questions predominate to the same extent discussed above. See supra

11

Sections II.C.1.b.i–vii, II.C.1.c–d.

12

2.

Superiority

13

The final requirement for class certification is “that a class action [be] superior to

14

other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy.” Fed R.

15

Civ. P. 23(b)(3). “In determining superiority, courts must consider the four factors of Rule

16

23(b)(3).” Zinser, 253 F.3d at 1190. The Rule 23(b)(3) factors are:

17

(A) [T]he class members’ interests in individually controlling the
prosecution or defense of separate actions; (B) the extent and
nature of any litigation concerning the controversy already begun
by or against class members; (C) the desirability or undesirability
of concentrating the litigation of the claims in the particular
forum; and (D) the likely difficulties in managing a class action.

18
19
20
21
22

///

23
24
25
26
27
28

19

For example, Defendant contends that Plaintiff’s negligence cause of action is time-barred. See, e.g.,
ECF No. 118 at 17. Further, “[i]n California, there is not a standalone cause of action for ‘unjust
enrichment,’ . . . [although] a court may ‘construe the cause of action as a quasi-contract claim seeking
restitution.’” Astiana v. Hain Celestial Grp., Inc., 783 F.3d 753, 762 (9th Cir. 2015) (quoting Rutherford
Holdings, LLC v. Plaza Del Rey, 223 Cal. App. 4th 221 (2014)) (citing Durell v. Sharp Healthcare, 183
Cal. App. 4th 1350 (2010); Jogani v. Super. Ct., 165 Cal. App. 4th 901 (2008)). The Court declines to
resolve these issues at this time and on the current record.
56
17-CV-1112 JLS (NLS)

1

Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3). The superiority inquiry focuses “on the efficiency and economy

2

elements of the class action so that cases allowed under [Rule 23(b)(3)] are those that can

3

be adjudicated most profitably on a representative basis.” Zinser, 253 F.3d at 1190

4

(internal quotation marks omitted). A district court has “broad discretion” in determining

5

whether class treatment is superior. Kamm v. Cal. City Dev. Co., 509 F.2d 205, 210 (9th

6

Cir. 1975).

7

Plaintiffs contend that a class action is superior here because “many of the putative

8

class members have a limited understanding of the law, limited English skills, and limited

9

resources to devote to pursuing recovery.” ECF No. 87 at 25. “Many former ICE detainees

10

also fear retaliation given their uncertain immigration status or ongoing immigration

11

proceedings.” Id. (citing Just Film, Inc. v. Buono, 847 F.3d 1108, 1123 (9th Cir. 2017)).

12

“Finally, the class members are geographically dispersed given the number of CoreCivic

13

facilities throughout the United States.” Id. (citing In re Monster Worldwide, Inc. Secs.

14

Litig., 251 F.R.D. 132, 139 (S.D.N.Y. 2008)).

15

Defendant claims that “Plaintiffs fail to meaningfully address, much less meet their

16

burden of establishing through evidence, that class treatment is the ‘superior’ method for

17

resolving all claims efficiently and economically.” ECF No. 118 at 33. Specifically,

18

Defendant contends, “[t]he putative National classes have no meaningful ties to California,

19

and Plaintiffs provide no reason why this forum is superior.” Id. (citing Fed. R. Civ. P.

20

23(b)(3)(C)). Defendant claims that this action is not manageable as a class action because

21

it involves “five classes, which . . . will include more than 120,000 people who are scattered

22

across a multitude of countries.” Id. at 34. According to Defendant, individualized

23

inquiries as to liability and damages also weigh against class certification here. See id. at

24

34–35.

25

Plaintiffs note that “damages calculations cannot defeat class certification,” ECF No.

26

127 (quoting ECF No. 118 at 35), and note that “CoreCivic’s arguments regarding other

27

pending litigation against CoreCivic—in addition to demonstrating the scope of

28

CoreCivic’s enterprise-wide policies and practices—confirms that the class members are
57
17-CV-1112 JLS (NLS)

1

geographically dispersed.” Id. (citing In re Monster Worldwide, Inc. Secs. Litig., 251

2

F.R.D. at 139). Further, this is the first-filed of the several class actions to which Defendant

3

cites “and is the farthest along.” Id.

4

Although Defendant is correct that this action could prove unwieldy, it is also

5

precisely the sort of action where class-wide litigation is superior to other methods of

6

litigation. See Tr. at 28:23–29:13 (“[I]f this doesn’t happen on a class basis, it doesn’t

7

happen. . . . These detainees are not in a position to take any action. . . . [A class action]

8

may be the only way to consider doing this.”). Here, “the ‘risks, small recovery, and

9

relatively high costs of litigation’ make it unlikely that plaintiffs would individually pursue

10

their claims,” “considerations . . . [that] vividly point[] to the need for class treatment.” See

11

Just Film, Inc., 847 F.3d at 1123; see also Amchem Prods., 521 U.S. at 617 (“The policy

12

at the very core of the class action mechanism is to overcome the problem that small

13

recoveries do not provide the incentive for any individual to bring a solo action prosecuting

14

his or her rights.”) (quoting Mace v. Van Ru Credit Corp., 109 F.3d 338, 344 (7th Cir.

15

1997)). Further, “litigation on a classwide basis would promote greater efficiency in

16

resolving the classes’ claims.” Id. at 1123–24 (citing Valentino v. Carter-Wallace, Inc., 97

17

F.3d 1227, 1234 (9th Cir. 1996)). Because no viable alternative method for adjudication

18

exists, the Court concludes that class-wide litigation is superior. See, e.g., Leyva v. Medline

19

Indus. Inc., 716 F.3d 510, 515 (9th Cir. 2013) (concluding that district court erred in

20

concluding that class action was not superior where “it appears that no[ other means for

21

putative class members to adjudicate their claims] exist[s]”); see also Bennett v.

22

GoDaddy.com LLC, No. CV-16-03908-PHX-ROS, 2019 WL 1552911, at *13 (D. Ariz.

23

Apr. 8, 2019) (“Realistically, the only alternative is for Defendant to avoid effectively all

24

liability for its actions. . . . A class action is far superior to the alternative of most of the

25

allegedly harmed individuals obtaining no relief.”) (citing Carnegie v. Household Int’l,

26

Inc., 376 F.3d 656, 661 (7th Cir. 2004)).

27

///

28

///
58
17-CV-1112 JLS (NLS)

1

CONCLUSION

2

In light of the foregoing, the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiffs’

3

Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (ECF No. 97), DENIES Defendant’s Motion for

4

Judgment on the Pleadings (ECF No. 117), DENIES AS MOOT Plaintiff’s Motion to

5

Exclude (ECF No. 128), and GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Plaintiffs’

6

Motion for Class Certification (ECF No. 84). Specifically, the Court CERTIFIES the

7

California and National Forced Labor Classes in their entirety and the California Labor

8

Law Class as to the causes of action for failure to pay minimum wage, failure to provide

9

wage statements for actual damages, failure to pay compensation upon termination, and

10

imposition of unlawful conditions of employment, pursuant to any limitations detailed

11

above. The Court also DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiffs’ claims for

12

injunctive relief and CONCLUDES that Mr. Gomez is neither an adequate nor typical

13

representative as to the wage statement and failure to pay compensation upon termination

14

claims. The Parties SHALL MEET AND CONFER 20 regarding the status of this

15

litigation and their anticipated next steps and SHALL FILE a joint status report within

16

fourteen (14) days of the electronic docketing of this Order.

17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18
19

Dated: April 1, 2020

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

20

In light of the current COVID-19 public emergency, see, e.g., Order of the Chief Judge No. 18 (S.D.
Cal. filed Mar. 17, 2020); Executive Order N-33-20, Executive Department of the State of California
(March 19, 2020), the Parties are encouraged to meet and confer telephonically.
59
17-CV-1112 JLS (NLS)