Wren et al v. RGIS Inventory Specialists, No. 3:2006cv05778 - Document 746 (N.D. Cal. 2009)
Court Description: AMENDED ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS' RENEWED MOTION TO DISMISS CERTAIN OPT-IN PLAINTIFFS. Signed by Judge Joseph C. Spero on June 19, 2009. (jcslc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/19/2009)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Wren et al v. RGIS Inventory Specialists Doc. 746 1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 TRISHA WREN, ET AL., 9 Plaintiff, For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 v. 11 RGIS INVENTORY SPECIALISTS, 12 Defendant. ______________________________/ No. C-06-05778 JCS AMENDED ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ RENEWED MOTION TO DISMISS CERTAIN OPT-IN PLAINTIFFS [Docket No. 732] 13 14 15 I. INTRODUCTION1 Defendants in this wage-and-hour class action filed a Motion to Dismiss Invalid Opt-In 16 Plaintiffs (“the Motion”). The Court found that “many of the issues raised in the motion [were] 17 premature and others [could be] resolved without court intervention.” See February 6, 2009 Order 18 [Docket No. 694]. Accordingly, the Motion was denied without prejudice and the parties were 19 ordered to meet and confer to resolve the issues raised in the Motion. On May 8, 2009, the parties 20 filed a Joint Proposal Regarding Dismissal of Certain of the Opt-In Plaintiffs (“Joint Proposal”). In 21 the Joint Proposal, the parties outline the issues on which they agree and the remaining disputes with 22 respect to the opt-in plaintiffs. As to the former, the Court adopts the parties’ Joint Proposal in full. 23 In this Order, the Court addresses the three remaining areas of disagreement, namely, whether the 24 Court should dismiss the claims of opt-in plaintiffs who: 1) filed consent forms after the Court- 25 ordered notice period ended; 2) served their discovery responses after the October 4, 2008 deadline; 26 and 3) filed Plaintiffs’ version of the Consent to Sue. In addition to the positions set forth by the 27 28 1 This Order corrects typographical errors in the Court’s May 29, 2009 Order [Docket No. 740]. In all other respects, it is identical to that Order. Dockets.Justia.com 1 parties on these issues in the Joint Proposal, the issues considered herein were fully briefed by the 2 parties at the time Defendants filed their original motion to dismiss. Therefore, the Court finds that 3 oral argument is not required, pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b). 4 II. For the Northern District of California United States District Court 5 BACKGROUND In its December 19, 2007 order granting conditional certification of certain classes of RGIS 6 employees, the Court ordered the parties to meet and confer to develop a joint proposal for notice to 7 potential class members. The parties were unable to agree on the length of the class period and as to 8 certain language in the notice and therefore asked the Court for guidance. At the January 22, 2008 9 case management conference, the Court set the notice period for 90 days and approved Defendants’ 10 proposed notice with the exception of certain language that the Court ordered removed. See Docket 11 Nos. 229 (minutes) & 232 (Further Case Management and Pretrial Order); Declaration of Cheryl D. 12 Orr in Support of RGIS’ Motion to Dismiss Invalid Opt-In Plaintiffs (“Orr Decl.”), Ex. 1 (court- 13 approved notice). 14 The parties enlisted a third-party class administrator, RG/2, to handle the opt-in process. Orr 15 Decl., ¶ 7. RG/2 sent out four sets of opt-in notices to putative class members. Id. The first set was 16 mailed on February 29, 2008, with an opt-in deadline of May 29, 2008. Id. The second and third 17 sets were mailed out on March 17 and April 4, 2008, with opt-in deadlines of June 15 and July 3, 18 2008, respectively. Id.; see also Docket No. 430 (Stipulation and Order re: Opt-In Deadline). By 19 May 6, 2008, over 43,000 notice packets had been returned to RG/2 as undeliverable. Declaration of 20 Claims Administrator [Docket No. 349]. Consequently, the Court ordered RGIS to provide to RG/2 21 the social security numbers for these individuals so that correct addresses could be found; the Court 22 further held that the opt-in deadline for these individuals would be 30 days from the date on which 23 the social security numbers were turned over. See Docket No. 381. 24 Defendants provided the social security numbers to RG/2 on June 17, 2008. Declaration of 25 Stephanie Valerio in Support of Parties’ Joint Proposal Regarding Dismissal of Certain Opt-In 26 Plaintiffs (“Valerio Decl.”), ¶ 2. RG/2 sent out packets to the putative class members for whom 27 addresses were found, but the packets contained only opt-in forms; they did not contain notices. 28 Docket No. 430 (Stipulation and Order re Opt-In Deadline). The packets were re-sent, with notices, 2 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 1 on July 9, 2008. Orr Decl., ¶ 14. To give these individuals adequate time to respond, the parties 2 stipulated that the opt-in deadline for them would be extended from July 17, 2008 – that is, 30 days 3 from the date the social security numbers had been turned over to RG/2 – to July 28, 2008. Docket 4 No. 430. The parties agree that 481 individuals returned their consents after the specified opt-in 5 deadlines but on or before the last deadline, July 28, 2008. Joint Proposal, Ex. C. An additional 647 6 individuals submitted their consents after July 28, 2008. Joint Proposal, Ex. B. 7 In addition to the notice packets that were sent out by RG/2, Plaintiffs’ counsel also sent out 8 notices and consent forms to individuals who had contacted them because they had heard about the 9 lawsuit and believed they might be in the class but had not received notice from RG/2 and were not 10 on any list provided by RGIS. See Declaration of Christian Schreiber in Support of Plaintiffs’ 11 Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Opt-In Plaintiffs (“Schreiber Decl.”), ¶ 19. These 12 individuals were sent the Court-approved notice along with the consent form that had been used by 13 Plaintiffs’ counsel prior to conditional certification. Id. Sixty-nine individuals opted in to the class 14 using these pre-certification consent forms. Joint Proposal, Ex. E. 15 On April 4, 2008, Defendants served special interrogatories and requests for production of 16 documents on the opt-in plaintiffs. See Docket No. 522. Plaintiffs’ counsel spent almost three 17 thousand hours trying to contact opt-in plaintiffs and assisting them with their discovery responses. 18 Schreiber Decl., ¶ 5. As of September 4, 2008, 131 individuals had failed to respond to Defendants’ 19 discovery. Id., ¶ 6. The Court issued an order to show cause requiring that they respond by October 20 4, 2008 or show good cause why they were unable to do so. Docket No. 522. The Court cautioned 21 that “[i]f you do not respond to this Court-ordered discovery by October 4, 2008, or show good 22 cause why you are unable to do so by October 4, 2008, this Court may dismiss your wage and hour 23 claims in this action with prejudice.” Id. Ninety-nine individuals failed to respond to the Court’s 24 Order to Show Cause by the October 4, 2008 deadline. See Joint Proposal, Ex. D. According to 25 Plaintiffs, four of these individuals responded to Defendants’ discovery after the October 4, 2008 26 27 28 3 1 deadline and another, Regina Stanley Weeks, showed good cause for failing to respond. Joint 2 Proposal at 3-4.2 3 For the Northern District of California III. United States District Court 4 OPT-IN PLAINTIFFS WHO FILED CONSENTS AFTER NOTICE-PERIOD DEADLINE 5 Defendants ask the Court to dismiss the plaintiffs who submitted their consent forms after the 6 applicable deadlines, arguing that “the parties should be able to definitively evaluate the scope of the 7 class at the close of each opt-in period” and that to allow individuals who opted in after the 8 deadlines to remain in the action would “negate” the Court’s ruling regarding the duration of the opt- 9 in period. Defendants further point out that the parties expressly stipulated to each of the mailing 10 and notice dates. Plaintiffs, on the other hand, contend that the late opt-in plaintiffs should not be 11 dismissed, arguing that it is in the interest of judicial economy to allow them to participate in this 12 case and that the Court has the discretion to allow them to do so. In the alternative, Plaintiffs argue 13 that at least the individuals who opted in by July 28, 2008 should be allowed to participate because 14 the multiple mailings and opt-in dates may have created confusion among putative plaintiffs. For 15 the reasons stated below, the Court concludes that it is in the interest of judicial economy to allow 16 the plaintiffs who filed their consent forms untimely but by October 9, 2008 to remain in the action. 17 The Court declines, however, to extend the deadline as to the plaintiffs who filed their consents after 18 October 9, 2008, for whom no showing of good cause has been made. Therefore, the opt-in 19 Plaintiffs who are listed in Exhibit C to the Joint Proposal shall remain in the action, while those 20 listed in Exhibit B who filed consents after October 9, 2008 shall be dismissed. 21 In Hoffman-LaRoche v. Sperling, 493 U.S. 165, 172 (1989), the Supreme Court held that 22 district courts have discretion to facilitate notice in class actions, including setting cut-off dates for 23 the filing of consents. Where compliance with such deadlines is at issue, courts often apply a good- 24 cause analysis to determine whether the deadline should be excused as to particular plaintiffs. See, 25 e.g., Moya v. Pilgrim’s Pride Corp., 2006 WL 3486739 * 1 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 30, 2006). For example, 26 27 28 2 The Court can find no evidence in the record indicating when the late discovery responses were provided or why they were filed late; nor does the Court find any evidence in the record indicating the reason Ms. Weeks was unable to respond to Defendants’ discovery. 4 1 in Moya, the court allowed three out of eight late opt-ins to join the class; one returned his consent 2 late because he was incarcerated and therefore received the notice late, while the consents of the two 3 other opt-ins “[fell] prey to the United States Postal Services’ snail mail.” Id. at * 2. The court in 4 that case concluded that allowing these individuals to remain in the case would not prejudice the 5 defendant and excused the deadline as to the three. Id. On the other hand, it dismissed a plaintiff 6 who returned the consent late because the notice got “lost” under a pile of junk mail, a plaintiff who 7 said the notice arrived late but did not explain why, a plaintiff who said she sent the notice late 8 because she feared retaliation, and a plaintiff who received the notice late because she moved to a 9 new address but did not explain whether the delay was the fault of the Postal Service or because she For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 had failed to leave a forwarding address. Id. 11 A good-cause analysis may not always be appropriate, however. In particular, Judge Patel, 12 in this district recently held in a large, multi-district litigation brought under the FLSA that “a rigid 13 application of a ‘good cause’ test [did] not fully respond to the various factors with which the court 14 must concern itself.” In re Wells Fargo Home Mortgage Overtime Pay Litigation, 2008 WL 15 4712769 (N.D. Cal. October 23, 2008). To explain its point, the court quoted the Eighth Circuit’s 16 discussion of how deadlines should be treated in the FLSA context: 17 18 The FLSA should be given a broad reading, in favor of coverage. It is a remedial statute that “has been construed liberally to apply to the furthest reaches consistent with congressional direction.” ... A generous reading, in favor of those whom congress intended to benefit from the law, is also appropriate when considering issues of time limits and deadlines. 19 20 Id at * 2 (quoting Kelley v. Alamo, 964 F.2d 747, 749-750 (1992)). With the remedial purpose of the 21 FLSA in mind, the court addressed whether 350 plaintiffs who filed their consent forms after the 22 April 18, 2008 deadline – the bulk of whom filed their consents within a month of that deadline – 23 should be dismissed from the case. Id. 24 The court considered both judicial economy and prejudice to the defendant of permitting the 25 opt-ins to participate in the action. Id. As to the former, the court found that extending the deadline 26 would be in the interest of judicial economy because if the 350 plaintiffs were dismissed, a separate 27 class action would likely be spawned, thereby partially frustrating the rationale for the class action 28 mechanism. The court further concluded that allowing the late opt-ins to remain in the case would 5 1 not prejudice the defendant because the number of class members at issue represented only a small 2 percentage increase in the size of the class, which already included over four thousand individuals, 3 and because the case was still at an early stage. Id. Accordingly, the court permitted the late opt-ins 4 who filed their consents within a month of the April 18 deadline to participate in the class without 5 demonstrating good cause as to each individual plaintiff. Id. The court further held that opt-in 6 plaintiffs who filed their consent after May 18 would be permitted to join the class where they made 7 a showing of good cause based upon a declaration under penalty of perjury explaining why the 8 individual was unable to postmark the form by the April 18 deadline. Id. at *3. For the Northern District of California United States District Court 9 Here, the parties have identified 481 individuals who filed their consents after the deadlines 10 that applied to them but by July 28, 2008. Joint Proposal, Ex. C. In addition, they have identified 11 647 individuals who filed their opt-in consents between July 28, 2008 and April 18, 2009. Dismissal 12 of these individuals runs counter to the remedial purposes of the FLSA to the extent it may result in 13 forfeiture of their claims. In addition, if dismissed, these individuals are numerous enough that they 14 might file separate class actions, which would defeat the purpose of the class action mechanism. On 15 the other hand, to the extent that Defendants’ motion to decertify was due on October 9, 2008, 16 allowing individuals to opt in as plaintiffs after that date would be unfair to Defendants and could 17 result in actual prejudice to them. Balancing these factors, the Court concludes, as did Judge Patel 18 in the Wells Fargo case, that some relaxation of the deadline for filing consents is in the interest of 19 judicial economy and will not result in prejudice to Defendants. Therefore, the Court will permit the 20 individuals who submitted their consents untimely but by October 9, 2008, to remain in this action 21 even though no showing of good cause has been made as to these individuals. The individuals who 22 submitted opt-in consents after October 9, 2008, however, are dismissed. By the time these 23 individuals returned their consents, Defendants had already served discovery on the opt-in plaintiffs 24 and it was clearly too late for Defendants to obtain discovery from these late opt-ins before their 25 motion to decertify was due. Further, although this Motion was originally brought in October 2008, 26 Plaintiffs have not presented the Court with any evidence that the individuals who filed their 27 consents after October 9, 2008 had good cause for returning their forms after the applicable 28 deadlines. Therefore, the Motion is GRANTED as to the individuals listed in Exhibit B to the Joint 6 1 Proposal who submitted their consent forms after October 9, 2008. The Motion is DENIED as to all 2 of the opt-in plaintiffs who submitted their consent forms by October 9, 2008. 3 IV. For the Northern District of California United States District Court 4 OPT-IN PLAINTIFFS WHO FILED PRE-CERTIFICATION CONSENT FORMS Defendants ask the Court to dismiss 69 plaintiffs who filed the plaintiff’s version of the 5 consent form rather than the court-approved consent form. See Joint Proposal, Ex. E. Defendants 6 assert that “[e]ndorsing Plaintiffs’ unilateral solicitation of class members via their self-mailed and 7 independently drafted ‘notice’ would effectively negate the Court’s efforts in crafting a neutral 8 notice.” Id. at 4. The Court DENIES Defendants’ request. Plaintiffs submitted a declaration 9 attesting that the individuals who filed the earlier version of the consent form were sent the court- 10 approved notice along with the consent form. See Schreiber Decl., ¶ 20. Defendants have presented 11 no evidence to the contrary. Thus, the only question is whether use of the Plaintiffs’ consent form, 12 which was used prior to conditional certification, warrants dismissal of these plaintiffs. The Court 13 already addressed this issue in its June 11, 2007 Order, in which it held that “nothing in [plaintiffs’ 14 consent form] is so inaccurate or misleading as to vitiate the consent of the opt-in plaintiffs” who 15 used that form. Docket No. 87 at 12. 16 17 V. OPT-IN PLAINTIFFS WHO RESPONDED TO DISCOVERY AFTER OCTOBER 4, 2008 DEADLINE 18 The parties are largely in agreement that the opt-in plaintiffs who failed to respond to 19 Defendants’ discovery requests should be dismissed from the action. See Joint Proposal at 3 & Ex. 20 D. Plaintiffs, however, assert that five opt-in plaintiffs listed in Ex. D should not be dismissed 21 because four of them ultimately responded to the discovery requests, albeit after the Court’s October 22 4 deadline, and one showed good cause for failing to respond. The Court rejects Plaintiffs’ request. 23 As to the four who responded untimely, Plaintiffs have offered no explanation for the failure to 24 respond in a timely manner. Unlike the late consents, which numbered in the hundreds, the late 25 discovery responses involved only a handful of individuals. In that context, the Court is unwilling to 26 excuse their lack of compliance without good cause. As to the fifth plaintiff, for whom Plaintiffs 27 assert there is good cause for failure to respond, the Court has found no evidence in the record 28 7 1 demonstrating such good cause. Accordingly, the Court dismisses all of the plaintiffs listed in 2 Exhibit D to the Joint Proposal. 3 VI. 4 The Motion is GRANTED as to the individuals listed in Exhibit B to the Joint Proposal who 5 submitted their consent forms after October 9, 2008. These individuals are dismissed without 6 prejudice. The Court also GRANTS the motion as to all of the individuals listed in Exhibit D on the 7 grounds that they failed to respond to discovery by the October 4, 2008 deadline and did not 8 establish good cause. The Motion is DENIED as to all other opt-in plaintiffs, except the Court 9 adopts the Joint Proposal as to the issues on which the parties have agreed. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court CONCLUSION 12 Dated: June 19, 2009 ___________________________ JOSEPH C. SPERO United States Magistrate Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 8
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
