Judge: Michael P. Linfield, Case: 20STCV42257, Date: 2022-09-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV42257    Hearing Date: September 28, 2022    Dept: 34

SUBJECT:                 Defendant Cintas Acuario, Inc.’s Motion to Determine Statutory Penalties, If Any

Moving Party:          Defendant Cintas Acuario, Inc.

Resp. Party:             Plaintiff Maria Avalos

Defendant Cintas Acuario, Inc.’s Motion to Determine Statutory Penalties, If Any is GRANTED. The Court DENIES Plaintiff Maria Avalos statutory penalties under Labor Code § 226(e).

I.           BACKGROUND

On November 3, 2020, Plaintiff Jane Doe filed a complaint against Defendants Cintas Acuario (“Cintas”) and Pedro Rivera (“Rivera”) alleging the following causes of action:

1.           Sexual Harassment

2.           Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

3.           Wrongful Termination

4.           Failure to Pay All Overtime Wages Owed

5.           Failure to Pay All Minimum Wages Owed

6.           Failure to Provide All Required Meal Periods

7.           Failure to Provide All Required Rest Periods

8.           Failure to Provide Accurate Wage Statements

9.           Failure to Pay Wages in a Timely Manner

10.       Failure to Pay All Wage Due Upon Separation From Employment

11.       Unfair Competition

On June 17, 2022, Plaintiff Jane Doe’s party’s name was changed to Maria Avalos. On Plaintiff Maria Avalos’ cause of action for sexual harassment against Defendants Cintas Acuario and Pedro Rivera, the jury found in favor of Pedro Rivera and Cintas Acuario and against Maria Avalos. (Minute Order, June 17, 2022, p. 2.)

On June 17, 2022, Plaintiff Jane Doe’s name was changed to Maria Avalos. A five-day jury trial was held from June 13-17, 2022.  At the conclusion of the trial, the jury returned a verdict for Defendants on seven of the eight of the causes of action that were tried to the jury.  The jury found for Plaintiff Avalos on her seventh cause of action for failure to provide accurate wage statements.  (Special Verdict; Minute Order, June 17, 2022, pp. 2-4.)  The parties agreed that, should the jury find for Plaintiff on her seventh cause of action, the Court would determine the amount of penalties to be awarded Plaintiff.

On September 6, 2022, Defendant Cintas Acuario, Inc. moved the Court for “for an Order to determine the amount of statutory penalties, in any, as to Plaintiff’s claim pursuant to Labor Code section 226(e). Because the one-year statute of limitation bars the recovery of statutory penalties, this Court should deny awarding any statutory penalties.” (Motion, p. 2:6-10.)

On September 16, 2022, Plaintiff Maria Avalos opposed Cintas’ motion to determine statutory penalties, if any.

On September 19, 2022, Cintas replied to Avalos’ opposition.

II.        ANALYSIS

A.          Legal Standard

“An employer, semimonthly or at the time of each payment of wages, shall furnish to his or her employee, either as a detachable part of the check, draft, or voucher paying the employee's wages, or separately if wages are paid by personal check or cash, an accurate itemized statement in writing. . . .” (Labor Code, § 226(a).)

“(1) An employee suffering injury as a result of a knowing and intentional failure by an employer to comply with subdivision (a) is entitled to recover the greater of all actual damages or fifty dollars ($50) for the initial pay period in which a violation occurs and one hundred dollars ($100) per employee for each violation in a subsequent pay period, not to exceed an aggregate penalty of four thousand dollars ($4,000), and is entitled to an award of costs and reasonable attorney's fees.

(2)(A) An employee is deemed to suffer injury for purposes of this subdivision if the employer fails to provide a wage statement.” (Labor Code, § 226(e)(1-2.)

Recovery under Labor Code § 226(a) for lost wages is subject to a three-year statute of limitations under CCP § 338(a) while recovery under Labor Code § 226(e) for statutory penalties is subject to a one-year statute of limitations under CCP § 340(a). (Falk v. Children's Hospital Los Angeles (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 1454, 1469; Byrd v. Masonite Corporation (C.D. Cal. 2016) 215 F.Supp.3d 859, 866; Singer v. Becton, Dickinson, and Co. (S.D. Cal., 2008 WL 2899825, at *5.)

B.          Discussion

Avalos’s Complaint, filed on November 3, 2020, prayed for statutory penalties against Defendants. (Complaint, Prayer for Relief, ¶ 2.) On June 17, 2022, the Court conducted a jury trial in this action; Avalos only prevailed on her seventh cause of action for failure to provide accurate wage statements. (Minute Order, June 17, 2022, pp. 2-4.) However, the jury found no actual damages associated with Defendants’ failure to provide accurate wage statements. (Id., Motion, MPA, p. 4:1-2.)

When a jury awards no damages to compensate for lost wages under Labor Code § 226, only statutory penalties may be recovered during the one-year statute of limitation under CCP § 340(a). The plain language of Labor Code section 226(e) states that an award in excess of the employee's actual damages constitutes a “penalty.” (Labor Code § 226(e).)  This was confirmed by our Supreme Court 15 years ago:  “In section 226, the Legislature imposed a penalty on employers who fail to provide itemized wage statements that comply with the Labor Code. (§ 226, subd. (e) [$50 for initial violation, $100 for subsequent violations].” (Murphy v. Kenneth Cole Productions, Inc. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 1094, 1108.)  Therefore, the requested award under Labor Code section 226(e) in excess of actual damages constitutes a penalty, and the one-year statute of limitations under CCP section 340(a) applies.

Defendants argue that Avalos’ “abandoned her position” in May 2019, going on vacation in Mexico starting April 18, 2019, and starting a leave of absence until her voluntary separation from Defendants in August 2019. (Motion, MPA, p. 5:8, 6:3-6.) Avalos retrieved her personal belongings on August 5, 2019. One year from the beginning of Avalos’ vacation is April 18, 2020. One year from Avalos’ personal item retrieval is August 5, 2020. Avalos filed her Complaint on November 3, 2020.

Avalos was not awarded damages by the jury that found Cintas liable for failure to provide her accurate wage statements. Any penalties that might be awarded for this cause of action are subject to a one-year statute of limitations, and Avalos’ Complaint was filed after that one-year period elapsed.

Statutory penalties are for Plaintiff’s seventh cause of action for failure to provide accurate wage statements are barred by the appropriate Statute of Limitations.

III.     CONCLUSION

Defendant Cintas Acuario, Inc.’s Motion to Determine Statutory Penalties, If Any is GRANTED. The Court DENIES Plaintiff Maria Avalos statutory penalties under Labor Code § 226(e).