Stickles v. Atria Senior Living, Inc.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 7 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8

10 GEORGE STICKLES and MICHELE RHODES, 11 No. C 20-9220 WHA Plaintiffs, 12

v.

13 ORDER DENYING MOTION TO ATRIA SENIOR LIVING, INC. and ATRIA COMPEL TRIAL PLAN 15 Defendants.

16 18 In this wage-and-hour class action, defendants move to compel plaintiffs 19 to submit a trial plan. For the following reasons, the motion is DENIED. 21 Plaintiffs George Stickles and Michele Rhodes each worked as a 22 “Community Sales Director” for defendants, Atria Senior Living, Inc. and Atria 23 Management Company, LLC. Plaintiffs allege defendants misclassified them 24 and other CSDs as exempt employees. 25 A prior order certified the following class: CSDs who did not sign 26 arbitration agreements and whom defendants classified as exempt outside 27 salespersons from the date plaintiff George Stickles began his employment with 1 solely to this issue: whether defendants properly classified CSDs as exempt 2 outside salespersons. Certification of the underlying wage-and-hour claims was 3 held in abeyance. 4 Now, defendants argue plaintiffs must submit a trial plan to show this 5 class action would be manageable at trial. Defendants assert this action would 6 not be manageable at trial due to a failure of common proof. To support their 7 position, defendants point to the lack of data regarding CSD hours and the 8 shortcomings in plaintiffs’ analysis of the customer relationship management 9 database (which tracked CSDs’ work activities, but not hours, throughout the 10 class period). 11 This order follows full briefing. 13 Federal law does not require a plaintiff to submit a trial plan during or 14 immediately after the certification stage. See Chamberlan v. Ford Motor Co., 15 402 F.3d 952, 961 n. 4 (9th Cir. 2005). “While it is accurate that some courts 16 have required the party seeking class certification to present a trial plan, many 17 others do not. Whether a party proposing a class action must submit a trial plan 18 is therefore a forum-specific question.” 2 Newberg on Class Actions § 4:79 19 (5th ed. 2021). 20 Here, defendants cite a Ninth Circuit opinion for the proposition that 21 plaintiffs must submit a workable trial plan (Br. 5). Zinser v. Accufix Rsch. 22 Inst., Inc., 253 F.3d 1180, 1189 (9th Cir. 2001). But Zinser is distinguishable 23 because the manageability problem there was that the plaintiff sought to certify 24 “a nationwide class for which the law of forty-eight states potentially applie[d],” 25 which could “‘compound the disparities’ among class members from different 26 states.” Ibid. (citations omitted). The law of only one state — California — can 27 apply here, so there is no multi-state manageability issue requiring a trial plan. 1 Defendants also cite Duran v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Assn., 59 Cal. 4th 1 (2014), for the 2 proposition that, in California, “trial plans are necessary to determine whether a case may be 3 managed effectively on a class-wide basis” (Br. 5). But class action procedure in federal 4 courts is governed by FRCP 23, and the instant issue regarding trial plans is procedural. Brazil 5 v. Dole Packaged Foods, LLC, No. 12-CV-01831-LHK, 2014 WL 2738179, at *1 (N.D. Cal. 6 June 16, 2014) (Judge Lucy Koh). Thus, Duran is not binding here. 7 Because a trial plan is not required here, we need not reach defendants’ numerous 8 arguments against the manageability of this action at trial. If a later stage in the proceedings, 9 such as trial, proves to be unmanageable, then the Court will de-certify the class certification. 11 For the foregoing reasons, defendants’ motion to compel a trial plan 12 (Dkt. No. 49) is DENIED. Plaintiffs’ motion to strike defendants’ motion to 5 13 compel a trial plan (Dkt. No. 52) is DENIED AS MOOT. 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 2 16

17 || Dated: Mareh 10, 2022. Pee 18 [ A ~ WILLIAM ALSUP 19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28