Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-00525/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-00525-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Labor/Mgmnt. Relations

---

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

IVAN POINTER,

Plaintiff,

v.

BANK OF AMERICA NATIONAL 

ASSOCIATION, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:14-cv-0525 KJM CKD PS

ORDER

Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to interrogatories came on regularly for 

hearing on November 19, 2014. Matthew Righetti appeared telephonically for plaintiff. Regina 

Musolino appeared for defendant Bank of America, N.A. Upon review of the documents in 

support and opposition, upon hearing the arguments of counsel, and good cause appearing 

therefor, THE COURT FINDS AS FOLLOWS:

In this wage and hour putative class action, plaintiff, who was employed as a Home 

Service Specialist (“HSS”),1alleges that defendant Bank of America failed to pay him at the 

appropriate rate for overtime pay. The operative first amended complaint alleges that defendant 

 

1

 At the hearing, defendant clarified that plaintiff was employed as a “Home Equity Home 

Service Specialist (“HEHSS”). Defendant asserts that all employees with the title of HEHSS 

were employed at the Rancho Cordova office.

Case 2:14-cv-00525-KJM-CKD Document 22 Filed 11/20/14 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

failed to include non-discretionary bonus payments when calculating the regular rate of pay 

which served as the basis for overtime pay. Plaintiff alleges claims under the California Labor 

Code for failure to pay minimum wage for all hours worked, failure to provide an itemized wage 

statement, 30 days of wages under Labor Code § 203, violation of the California Unfair Business 

Practices Act (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200), and for penalties under California Labor Code §§ 

2698-99 (the Private Attorney Generals Act “PAGA”).2

Plaintiff seeks to represent a class composed of all non-exempt individuals employed by 

defendant with the title of Home Service Specialist who were paid wage compensation that 

included commission and/or bonus pay at any time within the four years preceding the filing of 

the action. Plaintiff also seeks to represent a sub-class comprising those members of the class 

whose employment with defendant ended for waiting time penalties allegedly owed pursuant to 

Labor Code § 203. The motion for class certification is set to be heard on March 13, 2015 before 

the District Judge.

Before the court is plaintiff’s motion to compel further response to interrogatory no. 6, 

which asks defendant to identify each class member. Whether to permit pre-certification 

discovery lies within the sound discretion of the trial court. See Doninger v. Pacific Northwest 

Bell, Inc., 564 F.2d 1304, 1312 (9th Cir. 1977). As the court noted in Doninger, “the necessary 

antecedent to the presentation of evidence [as to whether a class action is maintainable] is, in 

most cases, enough discovery to obtain the material, especially when the information is within the 

sole possession of the defendant.” Doninger, 564 F.2d at 1313; see also Vinole v. Countrywide 

Home Loans, Inc., 571 F.3d 935, 942 (9th Cir. 2009) (“Although a party seeking class 

certification is not always entitled to discovery on the class certification issue, we have stated that 

the propriety of a class action cannot be determined in some cases without discovery, and that the 

better and more advisable practice for a District Court to follow is to afford the litigants an 

opportunity to present evidence as to whether a class action was maintainable.”).

 

2

 Under the California PAGA, representative claims on behalf of all the HSS employees can 

proceed notwithstanding any class certification. See Arias v. Superior Court, 56 Cal. 4th 969 

(2009).

Case 2:14-cv-00525-KJM-CKD Document 22 Filed 11/20/14 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

In the circumstances presented here, the court finds that the discovery sought by plaintiff 

is appropriate. Plaintiff has demonstrated the need for discovery to substantiate the class 

allegations through his own affidavit (ECF No. 18-1 at p. 45-48) and the declaration of plaintiff’s 

counsel (ECF No. 18-1 at p.4, ¶4). See Mantole v. Bolger, 767 F.2d 1416, 1424 (9th Cir. 1985) 

(“plaintiff bears burden of advancing a prima facie showing that the class action requirements of 

[Rule 23] are satisfied or that discovery is likely to produce substantiation of the class 

allegations”). The court finds that the privacy interests of the class members will be adequately 

protected by the production of responsive discovery being subject to the protective order 

previously entered in this action. See ECF No. 9. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to compel (ECF No. 16) 

is granted. Within thirty days from the date of this order, defendants shall produce responsive 

names, addresses and telephone numbers of class members, subject to the stipulated protective 

order. Defendant shall state in the response whether only those class members employed at the 

Rancho Cordova office are identified and the reasons for said limitation. If plaintiff determines 

that the response should not be so limited, plaintiff may avail himself of the undersigned’s 

procedures for Informal Telephonic Conferences re Discovery Disputes set forth on the website 

for the Eastern District of California. 

Dated: November 20, 2014

4 pointer-bofa.oah

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:14-cv-00525-KJM-CKD Document 22 Filed 11/20/14 Page 3 of 3