Moreno v. Dash Lube

Opinion

ROBERTO MORENO, individually and Case No.: 18cv1922 DMS (AHG) on behalf of all others similarly situated, ORDER GRANTING RENEWED Plaintiff, JOINT MOTION TO DECERTIFY v. THE WAGE STATEMENT CLASS DASH LUBE, GHARDASH ENTERPRISES, INC., KAYLA CORP., collectively d/b/a as Jiffy Lube, PAYAM RYAN GHARDASH and POYA PAUL GHARDASH, Defendants. On December 13, 2019, this Court certified the following class on Plaintiffs’ wage statement claim: “All current and former hourly service technicians who worked for Defendants at any of their Jiffy Lube automotive oil change shops at any time from August 17, 2014 through judgment.” (ECF No. 49.) After that ruling, the parties engaged in numerous and lengthy settlement negotiations, and on July 24, 2020, they filed a Notice of Settlement. (ECF No. 62.) In that Notice, the parties reported they would be filing a joint motion to decertify the Wage Statement Class “within ten business days after execution of the formal settlement agreement.” (Id.) That motion was filed on November 4, 2020, and in that motion, the parties asserted that “Defendants’ precarious financial condition, in combination with the very real possibility that Defendants would prevail on the issue of liability, establish that good cause exists with respect to the Parties’ request to decertify the wage statement class.” (ECF No. 68 at 8.) The Court disagreed with that assertion, and denied the motion. (See ECF No. 71.) The parties have now filed a renewed motion to decertify the wage statement class. In this motion, the parties continue to assert that Defendants’ financial condition weighs in favor of decertification, and they have now filed evidence in support. The parties abandoned their argument about the merits of their wage statement claim, and now argue Plaintiffs lack Article III standing to pursue this claim, and that after further review of the evidence, the requirements of Rule 23 are not met with respect to this claim. As set out in the Court’s previous order, the legal basis for the parties’ motion is Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(1)(C), which states, “[a]n order that grants or denies class certification may be altered or amended before final judgment.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(1)(C). The standard for decertification is the same as it is with certification: “a district court must be satisfied that the requirements of Rules 23(a) and (b) are met to allow plaintiffs to maintain the action on a representative basis.” Makaeff v. Trump Univ., LLC, 309 F.R.D. 631, 635 (S.D. Cal. 2015) (citing Marlo v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 639 F.3d 942, 947 (9th Cir. 2011)). After reviewing the parties’ renewed motion, the Court finds the requirements of Rule 23 are no longer met with respect to the wage statement class. Specifically, there is no commonality between the class members, as the class is currently defined. Of the current and former hourly technicians included in the current class, the evidence reflects only eleven of them received a wage statement that did not comply with the statute. It appears the wage statements provided to the remaining class members were compliant with the statute, which destroys any commonality between the class as a whole. In light of this finding, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. The parties’ renewed motion to decertify the wage statement class is granted. 2. The parties shall not be required to issue notice of decertification to the class members, as there is no indication that class certification of Plaintiff’s wage statement claim received any publicity, notice of class certification was not disseminated to class members, and there is no indication that any class member learned about Plaintiff's wage statement claim or that the claim was certified. Within three days of the entry of this Order, the parties shall jointly submit to the Court a proposed Scheduling Order regulating the completion and submission of settlement papers and related approval motions and hearings, or a stipulated dismissal of this action. Dated: April 29, 2021 em Dh an Yn. Hon. Dana M. Sabraw, Chief Judge ? United States District Court