Valencia v. VF Outdoor, LLC, No. 1:2020cv01795 - Document 68 (E.D. Cal. 2021)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 64 FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS and Granting 53 Defendant's Motion to Deny Class Certification signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 12/6/2021. (Jessen, A)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 13 BRIANA VALENCIA, an individual, on behalf of all persons similarly situated on behalf of the State of California, as a private attorney general, and on behalf of all aggrieved employees, 14 15 16 17 Plaintiff, No. 1:20-cv-01795-DAD-SKO ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DENY CLASS CERTIFICATION v. (Doc. Nos. 53, 64) VF OUTDOOR, LLC, Defendant. 18 19 Plaintiff Briana Valencia brings this putative wage-and-hour class action and PAGA 20 representative action against defendant VF Outdoor, LLC. (Doc. No. 1-1.) On September 3, 21 2021, defendant filed a motion to deny class certification. (Doc. No. 53.) Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 22 § 636(b), the pending motion was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge for the issuance of 23 findings and recommendations. (See Doc. No. 43-2 at 3.) 24 On November 5, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 25 recommendations recommending that defendant’s motion to deny class certification (Doc. No. 26 53) be granted. (Doc. No. 64.) Specifically, the magistrate judge found that plaintiff cannot 27 satisfy the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) requirements of typicality and adequacy to serve 28 as a class representative of the classes as defined and proposed in her complaint because plaintiff 1 1 did not sign an arbitration agreement that most putative class members had signed and she seeks 2 to represent classes of all employees, not just those who also refused to sign the arbitration 3 agreement. (Id. at 6–10.) Those findings and recommendations were served on all parties and 4 contained notice that any objections thereto must be filed within fourteen (14) days of service. 5 (Id. at 10.) On November 19, 2021, plaintiff filed objections to the pending findings and 6 recommendations. (Doc. No. 66.) Defendant did not file objections to the findings and 7 recommendations, but on December 3, 2021, defendant filed a response to plaintiff’s objections. 8 (Doc. No. 67.) 9 In her objections, plaintiff requests that the court “clarify” that plaintiff can “continue 10 representing” class members who did not sign the arbitration agreement. (Doc. No. 66 at 7.) 11 Whether plaintiff can properly maintain a class action on behalf of putative class members who 12 did not sign the arbitration agreement, however, is the subject of plaintiff’s motion for class 13 certification, which is currently pending before the magistrate judge. (See Doc. No. 65.) The 14 undersigned will not prejudge that motion here. 15 Plaintiff also asserts that if she identifies an employee who could serve as a named 16 plaintiff to represent subclasses for those who signed the arbitration agreement, she “should be 17 allowed to reassert class certification” on behalf of those signatories. (Id. at 8.) But, the 18 undersigned does not view the pending findings and recommendations as foreclosing that 19 possibility. The magistrate judge observed that a request for leave to find an additional 20 representative to represent individuals who had signed the arbitration agreement was “not 21 properly before the [c]ourt,” and limited the findings and recommendation to recommending 22 denial of class certification “based on the classes as currently defined and proposed to be 23 represented by [p]laintiff Briana Valencia.” (Doc. No. 64 at 6 n.3 & 10 (emphasis added)). Accordingly, plaintiff’s objections provide no basis upon which to reject the pending 24 25 findings and recommendations. 26 ///// 27 ///// 28 ///// 2 1 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 2 de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including plaintiff’s 3 objections, the court concludes that the findings and recommendations are supported by the 4 record and by proper analysis. 5 Accordingly, 6 1. 7 8 adopted in full; 2. 3. 11 12 13 Defendant’s motion to deny class certification of the classes as defined and proposed in plaintiff’s complaint (Doc. No. 53) is granted; and 9 10 The findings and recommendations issued on November 5, 2021 (Doc. No. 64) are The matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: December 6, 2021 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3
]]>
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.
