Judge: Wesley L. Hsu, Case: 21PSCV00520, Date: 2023-03-27 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21PSCV00520 Hearing Date: March 27, 2023 Dept: L
1. Defendant CWD, LLC’s Motion to Seal Exhibit D to Janet
C. Shamilian’s Declaration in Support of CWD’S Opposition to Plaintiff Joanna
Salazar’s Motion to Compel Defendant to Provide Further Responses to
Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of Documents (Set One) Nos. 17-18, 28-29 and
32 is DENIED as not applicable.
2. The hearing on Defendant
CWD, LLC’s Motion to Strike Plaintiff Joanna Salazar’s PAGA Claim from the
Complaint is CONTINUED to June 22, 2023, at 9:30 a.m. [see below].
3. The hearing on Defendant
CWD, LLC’s Motion to Seal Exhibits G and H to Jeannie Martin’s Declaration in
Support of CWD’s Motion to Strike Joanna Salazar’s PAGA Claim from the
Complaint is CONTINUED to to June 22, 2023, at 9:30 a.m. [see below].
4. The hearing on Plaintiff
Joanna Salazar’s Motion to File Records Under Seal is CONTINUED to June 22,
2023, at 9:30 a.m.
Background
Plaintiff Joanna Salazar, individually, and on behalf
of aggrieved employees pursuant to
the Private
Attorneys General Act (“Plaintiff”) alleges as follows: Plaintiff
was employed by
CWD, LLC dba
Centric Parts and First Brands Group (“Defendant”) as an hourly-paid, non-exempt employee. Defendant,
inter alia, failed to compensate Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees for
all hours worked, including minimum/ and overtime wages and missed meal periods
and/or rest breaks, and failed to provide accurate wage statements. Defendant also
failed to pay Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees for all wages due and
owing during employment and upon termination of employment and failed to
reimburse them for all necessary business expenses.
On June 22,
2021, Plaintiff filed a complaint, asserting a cause of action against Defendant
and Does 1-100 for:
1.
Violation
of PAGA
A Case Management Conference is set for March 27, 2023.
1. Defendant’s Motion to Seal Exhibit D to Shamilian
Declaration
Legal Standard
California Rules of Court “Rules 2.550-2.551 apply to
records sealed or proposed to be sealed by court order.” (Cal. Rules of Court,
rule 2.550, subd. (a)(1).)
“These rules do not apply to discovery motions and records
filed or lodged in connection with discovery motions or proceedings.
However, the rules do apply to discovery materials that are used at trial or
submitted as a basis for adjudication of matters other than discovery motions
or proceedings.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.550, subd. (a)(3)
[emphasis added].)
Discussion
Defendant’s motion
is denied as not applicable. Exhibit D was submitted in connection with a
discovery motion; as such, California Rules of Court Rules 2.550 and 2.551 are simply
not implicated.
2. Motion to Strike
Defendant moves the
court for an order striking Plaintiff’s Private Attorneys General Act of 2004
(“PAGA”) cause of action.
Defendant moves for
the above relief pursuant to the court’s inherent authority and Wesson v.
Staples the Office Superstore, LLC (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 746, 762-763
[i.e., holding that “trial courts have inherent authority to ensure that a PAGA
claims will be manageable at trial—including the power to strike the claim, if
necessary—and that this authority is not inconsistent with PAGA’s procedures
and objectives, or with applicable precedent”].)
In Wesson,
Plaintiff Fred Wesson (“Wesson”) worked for Defendant Staples the Office
Superstore, LLC (“Staples”) as a store general manager. Wesson brought an
action against Staples asserting, inter alia, a PAGA representative claim on
behalf of himself and 345 other current and former Staples general managers in
California, premised on the theory that Staples had misclassified them as
exempt. Wesson moved to certify a class of Staples California general managers,
but the trial court denied the motion,
ruling that he has not demonstrated that his claims were susceptible to
common proof. Staples thereafter moved to strike Wesson’s PAGA claim on the
argument that the action would be “unmanageable” and would violate its due
process rights, as its intended affirmative defense of proper classification
would require individualized proof as to each general manager, such that the
claim could not be fairly and efficiently litigated. Wesson, in turn, argued
the trial court lacked authority to require that his claim be manageable and
that even if the court had such authority, it was enough that his prima facie
case was manageable. Wesson moved for summary adjudication of his PAGA claim
while Staples’s motion to strike was pending. Before ruling on the merits of
Staple’s motion to strike, the trial court concluded that it had inherent
authority to strike an unmanageable PAGA claim and invited Wesson to submit a
trial plan showing that his PAGA claim would be manageable at trial. The trial
court also permitted Wesson to file a supplemental brief in opposition to
Staples’s motion to strike. Wesson, in response, continued to argue that the
trial court lacked authority to require that his claim be manageable and set
forth his plan to prove his prima facie case, but failed to set forth how the
parties could litigate Staple’s affirmative defense. The trial court granted
Staples’s motion to strike and subsequently denied the MSA on the basis that
there was no need to consider same. The Second District Court of Appeal
affirmed.
Wesson, however, appears distinguishable from the
instant case at the very least procedurally, in that Plaintiff here has not
alleged any class claims (let alone filed a motion for class certification
which has been denied) and has not been given an opportunity to submit a trial
plan.
Plaintiff, in turn, urges that the court follow the
reasoning in Estrada v. Royalty Carpet Mills, Inc. (2022) 76 Cal.App.5th
685. In that case, the Fourth District Court of Appeal determined, inter alia,
that “a court cannot strike a PAGA claim based on manageability.” (Id.
at 697.) Estrada, however, is currently under review by the California
Supreme Court on the following issue: “Do trial courts have inherent authority
to ensure that claims under the Private Attorneys General Act (Lab. Code, §
2698 et seq.) will be manageable at trial, and to strike or narrow such claims
if they cannot be managed?”
A review of the California Supreme Court’s website reflects
that Estrada (Case No. S274340) was fully briefed as of September 26,
2022. No date has been set for oral argument. Based on the above, the court
will continue the hearing on the instant motion to June 22, 2023, at 9:30 a.m. The court
declines Defendant’s request that the action be stayed pending resolution of Estrada.
3-4. Defendant’s Motion to Seal Exhibits G and H to
Martin Declaration and Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal
The court will likewise continue the hearing on Defendant’s and Plaintiff’s respective motions to seal to June 22, 2023, at 9:30 a.m.