Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-00120/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-00120-20/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JUAN TREVINO, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

GOLDEN STATE FC LLC, et al.,

Defendants.

Lead Case No.: 1:18-cv-00120-DAD-BAM 

(Trevino)

Member Case Nos.:

1. 1:18-cv-00121-DAD-BAM (Palma)

2. 1:18-cv-00567-DAD-BAM (Avalos)

3. 1:18-cv-01176-DAD-BAM (Hagman)

4. 1:17-cv-01300-DAD-BAM (Ward)

ORDER DECLINING TO ADOPT FINDINGS 

AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND 

REFERRING THE PENDING MOTION FOR 

CLASS CERTIFICATION BACK TO THE 

MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiffs Juan Trevino, Christopher Ward, Linda Quinteros, Romeo Palma, Alberto 

Gianini and Juan C. Avalos, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, bring this 

consolidated class action against defendants Golden State FC, LLC (now known as Amazon.com 

Services LLC), Amazon.com, Inc., and Amazon Fulfillment Services, Inc. (now known as 

Amazon.com Services LLC) (collectively, “Amazon”). Plaintiffs moved for class certification 

pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3). (Doc. Nos. 96, 98.) The motion 

was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe for issuance of findings and 

Case 1:18-cv-00120-KES-BAM Document 181 Filed 05/05/22 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

recommendations in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and (C). (Doc. No. 112.) 

Amazon relatedly moved to exclude the testimony and opinions of plaintiffs’ expert Dr. Brian 

Kriegler, which plaintiffs had submitted in support of their pending motion for class certification. 

(Doc. No. 125.) Amazon’s motion was heard in conjunction with plaintiffs’ motion for class 

certification. (Doc. No. 126.)

 On June 8, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, 

recommending that plaintiffs’ motion for class certification be granted in part and denied in part 

and that Amazon’s motion to exclude plaintiffs’ expert Dr. Kriegler be denied as having been 

rendered moot. (Doc. No. 166.) Those findings and recommendations were served on the parties 

and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after 

service. (Id.) Plaintiffs filed objections on June 22, 2021, and Amazon filed a response to those 

objections on July 2, 2021. (Doc. Nos. 168, 170.) Additionally, plaintiffs filed a notice of 

supplemental authority on August 9, 2021, in which they pointed out that on August 3, 2021, the 

Ninth Circuit vacated its original decision in Olean Wholesale Grocery Cooperative, Inc. v. 

Bumble Bee Foods LLC, 993 F.3d 774 (9th Cir. 2021) (Olean I) and granted a rehearing en banc. 

(Doc. No. 171.) Plaintiffs contend that the pending findings and recommendations rely 

extensively on the now vacated decision in Olean I, which had vacated and remanded the district 

court’s granting of motions for class certification, in recommending the denial of certification as 

to certain classes in this case. (Id.) On August 23, 2021, defendants filed a response to plaintiffs’ 

notice of supplemental authority, in which they argued that the reasoning and analysis in the 

pending findings and recommendations remained correct even without reliance on the Olean I

decision. (Doc. No. 172 at 2.)

On August 27, 2021, the undersigned issued an order staying this case pending the final 

decision from the Ninth Circuit in Olean. (Doc. No. 173.) The parties were directed to file a 

status report with the court within fourteen (14) days of the Ninth Circuit’s issuance of a decision 

in Olean Wholesale Grocery Cooperative, Inc. v. Bumble Bee Foods LLC (No. 19-56514) (Olean 

II). (Id.) On April 8, 2022, the Ninth Circuit issued the en banc opinion in Olean II. See Olean 

Wholesale Grocery v. Bumble Bee Foods LLC 31 F.4th 651 (9th Cir. 2022) (en banc). On 

Case 1:18-cv-00120-KES-BAM Document 181 Filed 05/05/22 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

rehearing en banc the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of class certification. Id. In 

light of this new en banc opinion, on April 12, 2022, plaintiffs filed a notice with the court 

requesting that the court “lift its stay and consider and apply Olean II’s holdings in its de novo 

review of the Magistrate’s Findings and Recommendations and Plaintiffs’ Objections thereto.” 

(Doc. No. 179 at 3.) On April 13, 2022, the parties filed a joint status report, in which defendants 

requested the opportunity to file supplemental briefing addressing the decision in Olean II. (Doc. 

No. 180 at 4.) As a result of the potential changed circumstances stemming from the Olean II 

decision as it applies to the pending findings and recommendations, the court will not adopt the 

findings and recommendations at this time, but instead will refer this matter back to the assigned 

magistrate judge for consideration of further briefing and the issuance of amended findings and 

recommendations if necessary. 

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 

de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including the objections, 

the undersigned declines to adopt the pending findings and recommendations at this time. 

Instead, out of an abundance of caution, the pending motion for class certification (Doc. Nos. 96, 

98) will be referred back to the magistrate judge for further consideration in light of the Ninth 

Circuit’s opinion in Olean II. 

Accordingly, 

1. The court declines to adopt the findings and recommendations issued on June 8, 

2021 (Doc. No. 166); and 

2. Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification (Doc. Nos. 96, 98) and defendants’ motion 

to exclude the testimony of Dr. Kriegler (Doc. No. 125) are referred back to the 

assigned magistrate judge for the issuance of amended findings and 

recommendations in light of the Ninth Circuit’s en banc decision in Olean II.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 4, 2022 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:18-cv-00120-KES-BAM Document 181 Filed 05/05/22 Page 3 of 3