1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SANDY BELL, MARTIN GAMA, and No. 2:12-cv-02499-JAM-CKD MICHAEL GAMA, individually, 12 and on behalf of others similarly situated, and as 13 aggrieved employees pursuant ORDER DENYING to the Private Attorneys DEFENDANTS’SUCCESSIVE MOTION FOR 14 General Act (“PAGA”), SUMMARY JUDGMENT 15 Plaintiffs, 16 v. 17 HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC., a Delaware corporation; JOHN 18 BROOKS, an individual; and DOES 1-10 inclusive, 19 Defendants. 20 21 Sandy Bell, Martin Gama, and Michael Henry (“Plaintiffs”) 22 allege Defendants—Home Depot, U.S.A. and John Brooks, the 23 regional manager for the Home Depot stores where Plaintiffs 24 worked—violated California law by designing Home Depot’s workday 25 to evade overtime obligations. Since this case began, 26 Defendants have filed four motions for summary judgment. 27 Plaintiffs argue the Court should not adjudicate Defendants’ 28 most-recent motion because it raises arguments that either have 1 already been adjudicated or are legally baseless. The Court 2 agrees. For the reasons discussed below, the Court denies 3 Defendants’ successive motion for summary judgment.1 4 5 I. BACKGROUND 6 In 2012, Sandy Bell and Martin Gama brought a wage-and-hour 7 class action in state court, alleging Defendants violated several 8 provisions of the California Labor Code. Compl., ECF No. 2-3. 9 Defendants removed the suit this Court, where it was ultimately 10 consolidated with Henry v. Home Depot, U.S.A., a case transferred 11 from the Northern District of California. See ECF No. 136. 12 Over the past six years, Defendants have filed four motions 13 for summary judgment. In September 2015, before Bell and Henry’s 14 cases were consolidated, Defendants filed a motion for summary 15 judgment in Henry’s case. See, Henry v. Home Depot, U.S.A., No. 16 3:14-cv-04858-JST at ECF No. 29. Henry filed suit in the 17 Northern District of California, alleging Defendants designed 18 Home Depot’s workday to avoid overtime obligations. Id. at ECF 19 No. 1-2. Judge Tigar denied Defendants’ motion for summary 20 judgment on this claim, finding they failed to show, as a matter 21 of law, that Home Depot’s workday was not designed to evade 22 overtime compensation. Henry v. Home Depot, U.S.A., No. 14-cv- 23 04858-JST, 2016 WL 39719, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 4, 2016). 24 The next month, Defendants filed a motion for summary 25 judgment in Bell’s case. ECF No. 72. This Court granted 26
27 1 This motion was determined to be suitable for decision without oral argument. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(g). The hearing was 28 scheduled for November 5, 2019. 1 Defendants’ motion in all but one respect. Largely adopting the 2 reasoning set forth in Judge Tigar’s decision, this Court denied 3 Defendants’ motion on Plaintiffs’ claim that Home Depot’s workday 4 was designed to evade overtime compensation. See Transcript for 5 February 23, 2016 Hearing at 28:7-24, ECF No. 98. 6 After the Court consolidated Bell and Henry’s cases, 7 Defendants filed a motion for summary adjudication on Plaintiffs’ 8 Section 203 and 226 claims. May 2017 Mot. for Summ. J., ECF No. 9 146. Section 203 and 226 levy penalties against employers who 10 “willfully” fail to pay final wages (section 203) or “knowingly 11 and intentionally” fail to provide proper wage statements 12 (section 226). This Court granted Defendants’ motion for summary 13 adjudication in full. ECF No. 158. 14 Following this series of motions, Plaintiffs’ only remaining 15 claim is that Defendants designed the Home Depot workday to evade 16 overtime obligations. The current motion for summary judgment, 17 ECF No. 173, maintains Defendants are entitled to judgment on 18 that claim. 19 20 II. OPINION 21 A. Legal Standard 22 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 does not limit the 23 number of motions for summary judgment a party may file. 24 Hoffman v. Tonnemacher, 593 F.3d 908, 911 (9th Cir. 2010). 25 Indeed allowing a party to file a successive motion for summary 26 judgment is sometimes “logical[] and [] fosters the just, 27 speedy, and inexpensive resolution of suits.” Id. at 911 28 (citing Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 1). This is particularly true when 1 a successive motion is based on an “expanded factual record.” 2 Id. Even so, courts must be “conscious of the potential for 3 abuse of the procedure.” Id. For this reason, “district courts 4 retain discretion to weed out frivolous or simply repetitive 5 motions.” Id. 6 B. Analysis 7 Defendants argue the Court should adjudicate its successive 8 motion for summary judgment because the motion (1) is based on 9 an expanded record; and (2) proffers a new legal theory that 10 would resolve the case in its entirety. Mot. at 6-7. 11 Plaintiffs disagree, arguing the motion is premised on a 12 baseless legal theory and facts that were available at the time 13 of Defendants’ earlier motions. Opp’n at 5-6, 12-14. 14 1. Expanded Factual Record 15 The Court will not re-adjudicate the argument that 16 Plaintiffs cannot prove Home Depot’s workday was designed to 17 evade overtime. Defendants contend it is appropriate to 18 relitigate this argument because it “is based on an expanded 19 factual record, including additional facts regarding Home Depot’s 20 original workday designation in the early 1980s.” Mot. at 7. 21 This expanded record, Defendants contend, “makes clear that 22 Plaintiffs have no evidence at all to support their claim.” Id. 23 But as Plaintiffs argue, Defendants’ “expanded factual 24 record” refers to deposition testimony from Christine Barnaby—the 25 Director of Human Resources Operations at Home Depot. Opp’n at 5 26 (“The entirety of Home Depot’s Motion relies on the fact that it 27 has not changed its workday definition since the early 1980’s.”). 28 Barnaby was deposed on October 29, 2015. Indeed, Defendants 1 relied upon her testimony in their November 2015 and May 2017 2 motions for summary judgment. See Barnaby Decl., November 2015 3 Mot., ECF No. 72-2; Barnaby Decl., May 2017 Mot, ECF No. 146-1. 4 The Court denied Defendants’ November 2015 motion for 5 summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ overtime law claim. During the 6 hearing on this motion, the Court explained it had considered 7 Barnaby’s declaration and deposition testimony. Transcript of 8 Feb. 23, 2016 Hearing at 20:12, ECF No. 98. Notwithstanding that 9 evidence, the Court found itself unable to “conclude as a matter 10 of law that [Home Depot’s] workday designation was not designed 11 to evade overtime law.” Id. 28:21-24. 12 Defendants’ May 2017 motion for summary judgment dealt with 13 different claims. See May 2017 Mot. (requesting summary 14 adjudication on Plaintiffs’ Section 203 and Section 226 claims). 15 The Court nonetheless found occasion to discuss Barnaby’s 16 declaration, and reiterate its prior ruling on the overtime 17 claim. September 7, 2017 Order, ECF No. 58 (“In sum, although a 18 jury presented with the totality of the evidence may still find 19 Home Depot liable on the overtime claim . . . Home Depot has 20 presented a good faith defense to [Section 203 and 226] 21 liability.”) 22 Bearing these orders in mind, the Court finds Defendants’ 23 Barnaby-based argument is purely repetitive. The Court will not 24 allow Defendants to exploit a successive motion’s “potential for 25 abuse.” The Court denies the motion on this ground. 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 1 2. New Legal Theory 2 The Court also denies Defendants’ motion for summary 3 judgment based on their “new and distinct legal theory” that 4 California labor law only prohibits an employer from changing its 5 workday in a way that evades overtime obligations. See Mot. at 6 10-13.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SANDY BELL, MARTIN GAMA, and No. 2:12-cv-02499-JAM-CKD MICHAEL GAMA, individually, 12 and on behalf of others similarly situated, and as 13 aggrieved employees pursuant ORDER DENYING to the Private Attorneys DEFENDANTS’SUCCESSIVE MOTION FOR 14 General Act (“PAGA”), SUMMARY JUDGMENT 15 Plaintiffs, 16 v. 17 HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC., a Delaware corporation; JOHN 18 BROOKS, an individual; and DOES 1-10 inclusive, 19 Defendants. 20 21 Sandy Bell, Martin Gama, and Michael Henry (“Plaintiffs”) 22 allege Defendants—Home Depot, U.S.A. and John Brooks, the 23 regional manager for the Home Depot stores where Plaintiffs 24 worked—violated California law by designing Home Depot’s workday 25 to evade overtime obligations. Since this case began, 26 Defendants have filed four motions for summary judgment. 27 Plaintiffs argue the Court should not adjudicate Defendants’ 28 most-recent motion because it raises arguments that either have 1 already been adjudicated or are legally baseless. The Court 2 agrees. For the reasons discussed below, the Court denies 3 Defendants’ successive motion for summary judgment.1 4 5 I. BACKGROUND 6 In 2012, Sandy Bell and Martin Gama brought a wage-and-hour 7 class action in state court, alleging Defendants violated several 8 provisions of the California Labor Code. Compl., ECF No. 2-3. 9 Defendants removed the suit this Court, where it was ultimately 10 consolidated with Henry v. Home Depot, U.S.A., a case transferred 11 from the Northern District of California. See ECF No. 136. 12 Over the past six years, Defendants have filed four motions 13 for summary judgment. In September 2015, before Bell and Henry’s 14 cases were consolidated, Defendants filed a motion for summary 15 judgment in Henry’s case. See, Henry v. Home Depot, U.S.A., No. 16 3:14-cv-04858-JST at ECF No. 29. Henry filed suit in the 17 Northern District of California, alleging Defendants designed 18 Home Depot’s workday to avoid overtime obligations. Id. at ECF 19 No. 1-2. Judge Tigar denied Defendants’ motion for summary 20 judgment on this claim, finding they failed to show, as a matter 21 of law, that Home Depot’s workday was not designed to evade 22 overtime compensation. Henry v. Home Depot, U.S.A., No. 14-cv- 23 04858-JST, 2016 WL 39719, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 4, 2016). 24 The next month, Defendants filed a motion for summary 25 judgment in Bell’s case. ECF No. 72. This Court granted 26
27 1 This motion was determined to be suitable for decision without oral argument. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(g). The hearing was 28 scheduled for November 5, 2019. 1 Defendants’ motion in all but one respect. Largely adopting the 2 reasoning set forth in Judge Tigar’s decision, this Court denied 3 Defendants’ motion on Plaintiffs’ claim that Home Depot’s workday 4 was designed to evade overtime compensation. See Transcript for 5 February 23, 2016 Hearing at 28:7-24, ECF No. 98. 6 After the Court consolidated Bell and Henry’s cases, 7 Defendants filed a motion for summary adjudication on Plaintiffs’ 8 Section 203 and 226 claims. May 2017 Mot. for Summ. J., ECF No. 9 146. Section 203 and 226 levy penalties against employers who 10 “willfully” fail to pay final wages (section 203) or “knowingly 11 and intentionally” fail to provide proper wage statements 12 (section 226). This Court granted Defendants’ motion for summary 13 adjudication in full. ECF No. 158. 14 Following this series of motions, Plaintiffs’ only remaining 15 claim is that Defendants designed the Home Depot workday to evade 16 overtime obligations. The current motion for summary judgment, 17 ECF No. 173, maintains Defendants are entitled to judgment on 18 that claim. 19 20 II. OPINION 21 A. Legal Standard 22 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 does not limit the 23 number of motions for summary judgment a party may file. 24 Hoffman v. Tonnemacher, 593 F.3d 908, 911 (9th Cir. 2010). 25 Indeed allowing a party to file a successive motion for summary 26 judgment is sometimes “logical[] and [] fosters the just, 27 speedy, and inexpensive resolution of suits.” Id. at 911 28 (citing Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 1). This is particularly true when 1 a successive motion is based on an “expanded factual record.” 2 Id. Even so, courts must be “conscious of the potential for 3 abuse of the procedure.” Id. For this reason, “district courts 4 retain discretion to weed out frivolous or simply repetitive 5 motions.” Id. 6 B. Analysis 7 Defendants argue the Court should adjudicate its successive 8 motion for summary judgment because the motion (1) is based on 9 an expanded record; and (2) proffers a new legal theory that 10 would resolve the case in its entirety. Mot. at 6-7. 11 Plaintiffs disagree, arguing the motion is premised on a 12 baseless legal theory and facts that were available at the time 13 of Defendants’ earlier motions. Opp’n at 5-6, 12-14. 14 1. Expanded Factual Record 15 The Court will not re-adjudicate the argument that 16 Plaintiffs cannot prove Home Depot’s workday was designed to 17 evade overtime. Defendants contend it is appropriate to 18 relitigate this argument because it “is based on an expanded 19 factual record, including additional facts regarding Home Depot’s 20 original workday designation in the early 1980s.” Mot. at 7. 21 This expanded record, Defendants contend, “makes clear that 22 Plaintiffs have no evidence at all to support their claim.” Id. 23 But as Plaintiffs argue, Defendants’ “expanded factual 24 record” refers to deposition testimony from Christine Barnaby—the 25 Director of Human Resources Operations at Home Depot. Opp’n at 5 26 (“The entirety of Home Depot’s Motion relies on the fact that it 27 has not changed its workday definition since the early 1980’s.”). 28 Barnaby was deposed on October 29, 2015. Indeed, Defendants 1 relied upon her testimony in their November 2015 and May 2017 2 motions for summary judgment. See Barnaby Decl., November 2015 3 Mot., ECF No. 72-2; Barnaby Decl., May 2017 Mot, ECF No. 146-1. 4 The Court denied Defendants’ November 2015 motion for 5 summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ overtime law claim. During the 6 hearing on this motion, the Court explained it had considered 7 Barnaby’s declaration and deposition testimony. Transcript of 8 Feb. 23, 2016 Hearing at 20:12, ECF No. 98. Notwithstanding that 9 evidence, the Court found itself unable to “conclude as a matter 10 of law that [Home Depot’s] workday designation was not designed 11 to evade overtime law.” Id. 28:21-24. 12 Defendants’ May 2017 motion for summary judgment dealt with 13 different claims. See May 2017 Mot. (requesting summary 14 adjudication on Plaintiffs’ Section 203 and Section 226 claims). 15 The Court nonetheless found occasion to discuss Barnaby’s 16 declaration, and reiterate its prior ruling on the overtime 17 claim. September 7, 2017 Order, ECF No. 58 (“In sum, although a 18 jury presented with the totality of the evidence may still find 19 Home Depot liable on the overtime claim . . . Home Depot has 20 presented a good faith defense to [Section 203 and 226] 21 liability.”) 22 Bearing these orders in mind, the Court finds Defendants’ 23 Barnaby-based argument is purely repetitive. The Court will not 24 allow Defendants to exploit a successive motion’s “potential for 25 abuse.” The Court denies the motion on this ground. 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 1 2. New Legal Theory 2 The Court also denies Defendants’ motion for summary 3 judgment based on their “new and distinct legal theory” that 4 California labor law only prohibits an employer from changing its 5 workday in a way that evades overtime obligations. See Mot. at 6 10-13. Defendants cite two district court cases for the 7 proposition that courts frequently allow successive motions so a 8 party may present new legal arguments: Baker v. Phoenix Ins. Co., 9 No. 12-cv-1788-JLR, 2013 WL 3208564, at *2-3 (W.D. Wash. June 24, 10 2013); Larsgard v. Corizon Health, Inc., No. 13-cv-01747-PHX-SPL, 11 2014 WL 5340581, at *12 (D. Ariz. Oct. 21, 2014). In response, 12 Plaintiffs argue that, while a court may allow successive motions 13 so parties may raise new arguments, the new arguments cannot be 14 frivolous. See Opp’n at 12-13. Plaintiffs contend Defendants’ 15 newly-proposed theory is “without legal support and contravenes 16 the prevailing case law on which Judge Tigar and this Court based 17 their [prior summary judgment decisions].” Id. at 12. 18 The provision at issue here is the California Department of 19 Labor Standards Enforcement Policies and Interpretations Manual 20 (“DSLE Manual”) § 48.12. In relevant part, it reads: 21 A workday is a consecutive 24-hour period beginning at the same time each calendar day, but it may begin at 22 any time of day. The beginning of an employee’s workday need not coincide with the beginning of that 23 employee’s shift, and an employer may establish different workdays for different shifts. However, 24 once a workday is established, it may be changed only if the change is intended to be permanent and the 25 change is not designed to evade overtime obligations. 26 Defendants understand this provision as only proscribing 27 changes to an employee’s workday that are designed to evade 28 overtime obligations. Mot. at 10-13. That is to say: if an 1 employer establishes a workday designed to evade overtime 2 obligations but never changes it, the workday is valid under 3 California law. See Opp’n at 12-14. But as Plaintiffs argue, 4 this reading of § 48.12, is tortured, contravenes common sense, 5 and is unsupported by the cases Defendants cite. See Mot. at 10- 6 13 (citing Cummings v. Starbucks Corp., No. 12-cv-06345-MWF, 2013 7 WL 2096435 (C.D. Cal. May 14, 2013); Mendoza v. Nordstrom, Inc., 8 2 Cal. 5th 1074, 1084-85 (2017); Abshire v. Redland Energy 9 Servs., LLC, 695 F.3d 792, 794-95 (8th Cir. 2012); Johnson v. 10 Heckman Water Res. (CVR), Inc., 758 F.3d 627, 632-33 (5th Cir. 11 2014)). 12 Indeed, in Seymore v. Metson Marine, Inc., a California 13 Court of Appeal concluded that that California law barred 14 employers from “designat[ing] its workweek in a manner that is 15 designed primarily to evade overtime compensation.” 194 Cal. 16 App. 4th 361, 368 (2011), overruled on other grounds by Mendiola 17 v. CPS Security Solutions, Inc., 60 Cal. 4th 833 (2015). The 18 Eighth Circuit may have found that Seymore’s interpretation of 19 California law was incorrect, see Abshire v. Redland Energy 20 Services, LLC, 695 F.3d 792, 795 (8th Cir. 2012), but this Court 21 cannot. See Veliz v. Abney, 181 Fed. Appx. 621, 623 (9th Cir. 22 2006) (“When interpreting state law, federal courts . . . . [are] 23 obligated to follow the decisions of the state’s intermediate 24 appellate courts where there is no convincing evidence that the 25 state supreme court would decide the matter differently.”) 26 The newness of Home Depot’s second argument does not pardon 27 how closely it flirts with frivolity. The Court denies 28 Defendants successive motion for summary judgment on this ground. —e——e IIE III IRIE IRIIDE RIS) SDSS NEIDIO OIRO OSE! IEE ESE OD OE 2 Til. ORDER 3 For the reasons set forth above, the Court DENIES 4 Defendants’ successive motion for summary judgment. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 Dated: November 5, 2019 Lh Ion teiren staves odermacr 7008 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28