Ramos et al v. US Bank National Association

Filing 253

OPINION & ORDER: Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment 228 is Granted in Part and Denied in Part to the extent it seeks partial summary judgment as to the federal claims asserted on behalf of the absent members of the class putativel y represented by Ramos, and Denied to the extent it seeks to strike the state claims asserted on behalf of the absent members of the class putatively represented by Ramos. Specifically, the motion is granted as to the FLSA claims asserted on behalf o f all absent members of the putative truncation class to the extent predicated on the use of a truncating timesheet at any time prior to the date three years before each such member consents to join the truncation class, and otherwise denied. Signed on 11/16/09 by Judge Paul Papak. (gm)

IN T H E UNITED S T A T E S D I S T R I C T C O U R T F O R THE DISTRICT O F OREGON

D E N N I S R A M O S a n d K E L L Y SMITH, Plaintiffs, CV 0 8 - 1 1 5 0 - P K OPINION A N D ORDER

v.

U.S. B A N K N A T I O N A L A S S O C I A T I O N , Defendant. P A P A K , M a g i s t r a t e Judge: D e n n i s R a m o s , K e l l y S m i t h , A n n R o s s , a n d M a u r i t a P r a s a d filed a c l a s s a c t i o n l a w s u i t a g a i n s t U . S . B a n k N a t i o n a l A s s o c i a t i o n ("U.S. B a n k " ) i n t h e S u p e r i o r C o m i f o r the S t a t e o f California for the County o f A l a m e d a o n April 4, 2007. The plaintiffs alleged the defendant's l i a b i l i t y f o r v i o l a t i o n s o f f e d e r a l , C a l i f o m i a , W a s h i n g t o n , a n d O r e g o n w a g e a n d h o u r law. U . S . B a n k removed the action to the NOlihern District o f California effective June 7, 2007. T h e

Page 1 - OPINION A N D O R D E R

claims o f plaintiffs Ramos and Smith, and those o f the classes they putatively represented, were severed from those o f their co-plaintiffs and transferred to the District o f Oregon o n September 30,2008. In this district, plaintiffs Ramos and Smith have twice amended their complaint i n a n effort to clarify which o f the several claims asserted in the previous California proceedings would be pursued by the plaintiffs i n these Oregon proceedings, and by which putative classes, first o n December 1 5 , 2 0 0 8 , and subsequently o n January 1 2 , 2 0 0 9 . On February 18, 2009, I recommended granting pmiial summmy judgment i n favor o f U.S. B a n k o n the ground that p l a i n t i f f Smith was precluded fi'om representing the class she putatively represented, and o n May 2 0 , 2 0 0 9 , Judge Brown adopted my recommendation without modification. In consequence, plaintiffs cUl1'ently allege on b e h a l f o f Ramos and others similarly situated claims for failure to pay wages and failure to pay overtime in violation o f Oregon and federal statutOly law, o n b e h a l f o f Smith, a claim for failure to pay overtime in violation o f Oregon and federal statutory law, and on b e h a l f o f all named and absent plaintiffs, a claim for failure to pay all wages due and owing at the end o f employment i n violation o f Oregon statutory law. In July 2009, all named parties consented to magistrate jurisdiction. N o w before the c o u l i is U.S. Bank's motion (#228) for pmiial summmy judgment as to the federal claims asselied on b e h a l f o f the absent members o f the class putatively represented by Ramos, and to strike the state claims asselied on b e h a l f o f the absent members o f the class putatively represented b y Ramos. I have considered the motion, oral argument on b e h a l f o f the pmiies, and all o f the pleadings o n file. For the reasons set fOlih below, U.S. Bank's motion for p a r t i a l s u m m m y j u d g m e n t i s g r a n t e d i n p a r t a n d d e n i e d i n p m i , a n d i t s m o t i o n to s t r i k e i s d e n i e d . P a g e 2 - OPINION A N D O R D E R

LEGAL STANDARDS
I. Partial Summal")' Judgment
Summmy j u d g m e n t is appropriate " i f the pleadings, depositions, answers to intelTogatories, and admissions o n file, together w i t h the affidavits, i f any, s h o w that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving p m i y is entitled to a j u d g m e n t as a matter o f law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). S u m m m y j u d g m e n t is n o t proper i f material factual issues e x i s t for trial. See, e.g., Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 318, 322 (1986); Anderson v. Liberty

Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986); Warren v. City o / C a r l s b a d , 58 F.3d 439, 441 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 116 S.Ct. 1261 (1996). I n evaluating a motion for s u m m m y judgment, the
district courts o f the U n i t e d States m u s t d r a w all reasonable inferences i n favor o f the nonmoving party, and may neither m a k e credibility detelTilinations n o r perform any weighing o f the evidence. See, e.g., Lytle v. H