Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01314/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01314-92/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 29:206 Collect Unpaid Wages

---

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SANDRIKA MEDLOCK, LISA 

HARDIMAN, MIRIAM LEYVA, LORAINE

NARANJO, ENDANG WIDJAJA, KEVIN 

TAYLOR, DEBRA DOYLE, 

CHRISTOPHER DUGGAN, HILARIO 

ESCOBAR, and all others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

v.

TACO BELL CORP., and TACO BELL OF 

AMERICA, INC.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:07-cv-01314-SAB

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS‟ 

REQUEST TO AMEND THE CLASS 

PERIOD FOR THE REST BREAK CLASS 

AND DISMISS THE UNDERPAID MEAL 

PERIOD PREMIUM CLASS

(ECF Nos. 543, 560)

On February 1, 2016, Defendants filed a request for modification of the pretrial order. In 

the request, Defendants assert that the request to amend the class claims on the ground of statute 

of limitations had been raised in their motion to decertify the class. 

In separate footnotes in the motion to decertify the class, Defendants requested that the 

rest break class be amended to correct the limitations period from December 30, 2014 to the 

present and the underpaid meal period premium class be dismissed on statute of limitations 

grounds. (ECF No. 543 at n.2, 3.) Defendants contend that the statute of limitations should only 

extend four years back from the date that the classes were certified citing American Pipe & 

Construction Co. v. Utah (hereafter American Pipe), 414 U.S. 538 (1974). Plaintiffs replied that 

Case 1:07-cv-01314-SAB Document 607 Filed 02/04/16 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

this is not an action in which a subsequent case was filed after denial of class certification to 

which American Pipe would be applicable. Plaintiffs contend that this was an erroneous denial 

of class certification and the request should be denied. (ECF No. 560 at 26.) 

Initially, the Court advises Defendants that it is not good practice to move for substantive 

relief in the footnote of a motion. In the future Defendants would be well served by raising 

substantive issues on which they request relief in the body of their moving papers. Further, the 

Court considers that the issue could be waived based upon Defendants‟ failure to move for 

reconsideration of the order denying decertification of the classes. However, the Court shall 

address the statute of limitation issue raised in the motion.

In American Pipe, the Supreme Court held that “the commencement of the original class 

suit tolls the running of the statute for all purported members of the class who make timely 

motions to intervene after the court has found the suit inappropriate for class action status.” 

American Pipe, 414 U.S at 553. In Crown, Cork & Seal Co. v. Parker, 462 U.S. 345 (1983), the 

holding was extended to apply to all asserted members of the class. Crown, Cork & Seal Co., 

462 U.S. at 350. Once the class certification is denied the class members may choose to file their 

own suits or to intervene in the pending action. Id. at 353. The action here is not a subsequent 

action filed after the denial of class certification and the authority cited by Defendants is not on 

point. 

Under California law, to comply with the limitations period an action must be 

commenced within the period prescribed by statute. Cal. Code Civ. P. § 312. In this action, 

Defendants contend that the limitations period is four years. Plaintiffs filed this action on 

September 7, 2007. (ECF No. 1.) The late meal class period is defined as September 7, 2003 to 

July 1, 2013. (ECF No. 592 at 2.) The underpaid meal class period is defined as between 

September 7, 2003 and November 12, 2007. (Id. at 3.) Plaintiffs filed this action within four 

years of the class period as defined for each class. 

Defendants cite no authority for the proposition that an erroneous denial of class 

certification would extinguish claims that were filed within the limitations period. Further, under 

California law equitable tolling applies “where the plaintiff satisfied the required elements: 

Case 1:07-cv-01314-SAB Document 607 Filed 02/04/16 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

„timely notice, and lack of prejudice, to the defendant, and reasonable and good faith conduct on 

the part of the plaintiff.‟ ” Centaur Classic Convertible Arbitrage Fund Ltd. v. Countrywide 

Financial Corp., 878 F.Supp.2d 1009, 1018 (C.D. Cal. 2011) (citations omitted). 

Defendants had notice of the class claims raised in this action. Defendants have not 

shown that they would be prejudiced here by allowing the claims at issue here to proceed. 

Plaintiffs conduct in seeking reconsideration of the denial of class certification was reasonable 

and taken in good faith. The Court finds that even a rule did exist to run the statute of limitations 

due to the erroneous denial of class certification, equitable tolling would apply to Plaintiffs‟ class 

claims. 

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants‟ request to amend 

the class period for the rest break class and dismiss the underpaid meal period premium class 

based on the statute of limitations is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 4, 2016 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-01314-SAB Document 607 Filed 02/04/16 Page 3 of 3