Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-02340/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-02340-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Fair Labor Standards

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 1 - 05-CV-2340H (JMA)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LAURA FILION, on behalf of herself

and all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 05-CV-2340H (JMA)

ORDER RE JOINT MOTION

TO STAY ACTION

vs.

ETHAN ALLEN RETAIL, INC., a

Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1

through 100, inclusive,

Defendant.

On December 23, 2005, Plaintiff Laura Filion, on behalf of herself and all others

similarly situated (“Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint against Defendant Ethan Allen Retail,

Inc. (“Defendant”). Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint on January 25, 2006,

alleging, inter alia, violations of section 226.7 of the California Labor Code, which

mandates the payment of an hour of pay at an employee's regular rate of compensation

for each work day that a meal or rest period is not provided by an employer. Plaintiffs

and Defendant agree that the statute of limitations applicable to a suit brought under

section 226.7 is dependent upon whether the one-hour compensation is considered a

“wage” or a “penalty.” 

The California Court of Appeal has considered this question twice, reaching

opposite conclusions. See Murphy v. Kenneth Cole Productions, Inc., 36 Cal. Rptr. 3d

418, 440 (2005) (holding that the compensation imposed by section 226.7 is a penalty,

Case 3:05-cv-02340-H-JMA Document 16 Filed 11/01/06 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 - 05-CV-2340H (JMA)

mandating a one-year statute of limitations); National Steel and Shipbuilding Co. v.

Superior Court, 38 Cal. Rptr. 3d 253, 263 (2006) (holding that the compensation

imposed by section 226.7 is “in the nature of a statutory remedy to employees,”

mandating a three-year statute of limitations). The California Supreme Court has

granted review to both cases in order to decide, inter alia, the statute of limitations

period applicable to a suit under section 226.7. See Murphy v. Kenneth Cole

Productions, 130 P.3d 519, 519 (2006); National Steel & Shipbuilding v. Superior

Court, 132 P.3d 1166, 1166 (2006). Plaintiffs and Defendant seek a stay pending the

outcome of the California Supreme Court’s review of Murphy and National Steel.

The Court decides this motion upon the moving papers pursuant to local rule

7.1(d)(1) and GRANTS in part the requested stay, staying the suit until May 7, 2007.

The temporary stay is granted without prejudice regarding the ability of either party to

file an application seeking to extend the stay. If an extention is deired, Plaintiffs and/or

Defendant shall file a report regarding the status of Murphy and National Steel, along

with a motion to extend the stay, on April 30, 2007. The Court reserves the right to

deny extending the stay beyond six months in the interests of justice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 1, 2006

MARILYN L. HUFF, District Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 3:05-cv-02340-H-JMA Document 16 Filed 11/01/06 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 - 05-CV-2340H (JMA)

COPIES TO:

Thomas P. Brown IV

Brown Gitt Law Group, LLC

251 South Lake Avenue, Suite 910

Pasadena, CA 91101

Timothy D. Cohelan

Cohelan & Khoury

605 C Street, Suite 200

San Diego, CA 92101

Mark L. Miller

Law Offices of Mark L. Miller

2341 Jefferson Street, Suite 100

San Diego, CA 92110

Case 3:05-cv-02340-H-JMA Document 16 Filed 11/01/06 Page 3 of 3