Meadows v. American Addiction Centers, Inc.

Opinion

WILLIE R. MEADOWS, Case No. 18-cv-03291-BLF Plaintiff, v. ORDER VACATING APRIL 16, 2020 AMERICAN ADDICTION CENTERS, INTERVENE; GRANTING MOTION INC., TO INTERVENE; AUTHORIZING FILING OF COMPLAINT IN Defendant. INTERVENTION; AND SETTING DEADLINE FOR STATUS REPORT RE FILING OF CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT [Re: ECF 41]

Having determined that the Motion to Intervene (ECF 41) filed by Proposed Intervenor Caroline Park (“Park”) is appropriate for disposition without a hearing, the Court VACATES the hearing set for April 16, 2020. Park’s motion is GRANTED for the reasons discussed below. Plaintiff Willie R. Meadows (“Meadows”) filed this putative class action in the Santa Clara County Superior Court on April 27, 2018, asserting claims against his former employer, Defendant American Addiction Centers, Inc. (“AAC”), for violations of federal and state credit reporting laws, state wage and hour laws, and state unfair competition law. See Notice of Removal Exh. A, ECF 1-1. AAC removed the action to federal district court on June 1, 2018, on the basis of federal question jurisdiction. See Notice of Removal, ECF 1. Meadows filed the operative first amended complaint (“FAC”) on September 11, 2018, adding a claim under California’s Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”). See FAC, ECF 16. AAC answered the On April 11, 2019, Proposed Intervenor Park filed a putative class action against AAC in the Orange County Superior Court, and on July 12, 2019, Park filed a first amended complaint against AAC (“Park FAC”). See Allen Decl. ¶ 9, ECF 41-1. Although Park apparently intended to attach a copy of the Park FAC to the present motion, it was omitted from Park’s filing.1 The Court accepts the description of the Park FAC provided in the Motion to Intervene, which is signed by Park’s counsel. See Motion to Intervene, ECF 41. The Park FAC alleges that Park worked for AAC as a non-exempt, hourly nurse from approximately March 2016 to February 22, 2019. See id. Park asserts state law wage and hour claims on behalf of a putative class of non- exempt, hourly nurses employed by AAC in California, as well as a PAGA claim for penalties arising from the alleged wage and hour violations. See id. The Orange County Superior Court has stayed Park’s action. See Allen Decl. ¶ 10, ECF 41-1. Park now seeks leave to intervene as of right in the present action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a). See Motion to Intervene, ECF 41. An applicant seeking to intervene as of right under Rule 24(a) must “make four showings to qualify under this Rule: (1) it has a significant protectable interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of the action; (2) the disposition of the action may, as a practical matter, impair or impede the applicant’s ability to protect its interest; (3) the application is timely; and (4) the existing parties may not adequately represent the applicant’s interest.” Perry v. Schwarzenegger, 630 F.3d 898, 903 (9th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Park has satisfied these four requirements. She has a significant protectable interest in the subject of the present action, as it appears that she is a putative class member in the present action (factor 1). Disposition of the present action may impair or impede Park’s ability to protect her interest, as her claims against AAC will be resolved by the present action unless she opts out (factor 2). Park’s application is timely, as the present action is in its early stages (factor 3). Finally, the parties to the present action may not adequately represent Park’s interests, as Plaintiff Meadows has not asserted claims

1 The Allen Declaration states that a copy of Park’s FAC is attached to the declaration as Exhibit 1 specific to nurses who work an alternative workweek schedule or a standalone claim for unpaid 2 overtime, both claims that Park seeks to assert (factor 4). 3 Pursuant to a stipulation submitted by Plaintiff Meadows, Defendant AAC, and Proposed 4 Intervenor Park, and approved by the Court, any opposition to the Motion to Intervene was due by 5 March 6, 2020. See Stipulation and Order, ECF 44. Defendant AAC filed a Statement of Non- 6 Opposition on March 6, 2020. See Statement of Non-Opposition, ECF 45. Plaintiff Meadows did 7 not respond to the Motion to Intervene. Accordingly, based on the Court’s determination that Park 8 has satisfied the requirements of Rule 24(a), governing intervention as of right, and absent any 9 opposition, Park’s Motion to Intervene is GRANTED. 10 Park has submitted a Proposed Complaint in Intervention. See Proposed Complaint, ECF 11 41-2. Park SHALL file her Complaint in Intervention separately on the docket on or before April 12 15, 2020. 13 Meadows and Park SHALL file a joint status report, on or before April 22, 2020, advising 14 the Court whether they intend to file a consolidated class action complaint and proposing a 3 15 schedule for such filing. a 16 ORDER 3 17 For the foregoing reasons, 18 (1) The April 16, 2020 hearing on the Motion to Intervene is VACATED; 19 (2) The Motion to Intervene is GRANTED; 20 (3) Park SHALL file her Complaint in Intervention separately on the docket on or 21 before April 15, 2020; and 22 (4) Meadows and Park SHALL file a joint status report, on or before April 22, 2020, 23 advising the Court whether they intend to file a consolidated class action complaint 24 and proposing a schedule for such filing. 25 26 Dated: April 9, 2020 han en 1 fom fur Me BETH LABSON FREEMAN 28 United States District Judge