Judge: Kevin C. Brazile, Case: 23STCV14928, Date: 2024-05-15 Tentative Ruling

Hearing Date: May 15, 2024

Case Name: Duarte v. Apple, Inc., et al.

Case No.: 22STCV17978

Matter: Motion for Summary Judgment

Moving Party: Defendant Apple, Inc.

Responding Party: Plaintiff Diego Mejia Duarte

Notice: OK

Tentative Ruling: The Motion for Summary Judgment is denied.

Moving party to give notice.

If counsel do not submit on the tentative, they are strongly 

encouraged to appear by LACourtConnect rather than in person due to the COVID-19 pandemic. 

On June 1, 2022, Plaintiff Diego Mejia Duarte filed the operative Complaint for violations of the PAGA against Defendant Apple, Inc.

Defendant now moves for summary judgment on the ground that Duarte does not have standing because he did not suffer any Labor Code violations.  Specifically, Defendant argues that “Plaintiff identified the following items that he claims should have been included when calculating his regular rate of pay: (1) a COVID-19 bonus; (2) Apply Pay; (3) Apple iCloud service; (4) Apple Music service; (5) a gym membership reimbursement; and, potentially, (6) shutdown pay. Each of these items, however, are excludable from the regular rate of pay as a matter of law.”

Plaintiff argues only that his COVID-19 bonus should have been included in his regular rate of pay.  Plaintiff has filed a separate application to continue the instant Motion so as to conduct further discovery on the issue of whether the COVID-19 bonus was non-discretionary and thus needed to be included in his regular rate.  

Defendant opposes the request for a continuance, contending that it was Plaintiff that delayed the propounding of relevant discovery.  

The law of summary judgment provides courts “a mechanism to cut through the parties’ pleadings in order to determine whether, despite their allegations, trial is in fact necessary to resolve their dispute.”  (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 843.)  In reviewing a motion for summary judgment or adjudication, courts employ a three-step analysis: “(1) identify the issues framed by the pleadings; (2) determine whether the moving party has negated the opponent’s claims; and (3) determine whether the opposition has demonstrated the existence of a triable, material factual issue.”  (Hinesley v. Oakshade Town Center (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 289, 294.)  The moving party bears the initial burden of production to make a prima facie showing of the nonexistence of any triable issue, in which case the burden shifts to the opposing party to make a prima facie showing of the existence of a triable issue.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 437c(p)(2).)  To show a triable issue of material fact exists, the opposing party may not rely on the mere allegations or denials of the pleadings, but instead must set forth the specific facts showing that a triable issue exists as to that cause of action or a defense thereto.  (Aguilar, at p. 849.)  Courts “liberally construe the evidence in support of the party opposing summary judgment and resolve doubts concerning the evidence in favor of that party.”  (Dore v. Arnold Worldwide, Inc. (2006) 39 Cal.4th 384, 389.)

The U.S. Department of Labor has issued a statement that COVID-19 hazard pay and bonuses are non-discretionary pay that should be included in the employee’s regular rate of pay.  (See Plaintiff’s RJN, Exhibit 1.)  Indeed, “[t]he DOL's recent guidance clarified that employer-paid incentive payments-- including hazard pay for work performed during the COVID-19 emergency--do not meet any statutorily authorized exclusion and thus must be included in the regular rate used to compute employees' overtime pay. . . . If you've opted to provide incentive payments, including hazard pay, to employees for work during the coronavirus emergency, be sure to include the amounts in the regular rate when calculating any overtime compensation owed to them.”  (28 No. 1 Fair Lab. Standards Handbook for States, Loc. Gov't & Sch. Newsl. 4.)

The Court, therefore, finds triable issues for the matter of standing such that the Motion for Summary Judgment is denied.

The objections are overruled.  The Requests for Judicial Notice are granted.

Moving parties to give notice.

If counsel do not submit on the tentative, they are strongly encouraged to appear by LACourtConnect rather than in person due to the COVID-19 pandemic.