Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_13-cv-05097/USCOURTS-cand-4_13-cv-05097-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of California 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

MATTHEW ROSS, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

ECOLAB INC., 

Defendant. 

Case No. 13-cv-5097-PJH 

ORDER RE MEAL BREAK CLAIM 

 On September 28, 2015, this court issued an order regarding plaintiffs’ motion for 

partial summary judgment, defendant’s motion for summary judgment, and defendant’s 

motion for decertification. See Dkt. 104. While the order resolved most of the motions, 

the court deferred a ruling on two issues related to plaintiffs’ claim for missed meal 

breaks. First, as to defendant’s motion for summary judgment, the court granted the 

motion for the time period from October 12, 2008 to the present, but deferred a ruling for 

the time period from December 21, 2005 to October 11, 2008, on the basis that 

defendant had not actually submitted the evidence on which it was attempting to rely. 

Second, the court also deferred ruling on defendant’s motion to decertify the class as to 

the meal break claim until after it had considered the new evidence and the supplemental 

briefs. 

 Having now considered the new evidence and supplemental briefs, the court 

hereby DENIES defendant’s motion for summary judgment as to the meal break claim 

from December 21, 2005 to October 11, 2008, and DENIES defendant’s motion for 

decertification as to the meal break claim as follows. 

Case 4:13-cv-05097-PJH Document 117 Filed 11/03/15 Page 1 of 5
2 

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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of California 

 As mentioned in the court’s previous order, defendant has submitted evidence 

showing that, as of at least October 12, 2008, it had a policy and practice of sending the 

class members a “meal break reminder message” telling them to “please ensure you take 

your required meal and rest breaks,” and requiring them to certify that they had been 

provided all meal and rest breaks when they signed their timesheets. See Dkt. 104 at 20 

(citing Dkt. 78, Ex. III). However, for the period before then, the record was less clear. 

Defendant cited to a written policy, dated June 2007, that set forth the meal break 

requirement but did not have the “reminder” message or the certification, and further cited 

to the deposition testimony of its “person most knowledgeable” (under Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 30(b)(6)), stating that the meal break policy was in place since at least 

2005. However, as noted in the court’s order, defendant did not submit the “person most 

knowledgeable” deposition testimony as part of its motion, and requested leave of court 

to do so after the hearing. The court allowed the evidence to be submitted, but also 

allowed plaintiffs an opportunity to respond to the newly-submitted evidence. 

 On October 9, 2015, defendant submitted such evidence along with a 

supplemental brief. The brief described the three categories of evidence that were being 

submitted: (1) the deposition of “person most knowledgeable” Elizabeth Braun, 

defendant’s human resources manager, (2) deposition testimony from class members, 

and (3) documents reflecting defendant’s meal break policy. 

 As mentioned above, category (1) consists of deposition testimony stating that 

defendant had a policy of requiring meal breaks since at least December 2005, and 

further stating that the policy had been in writing since June 2007. However, in their 

responsive supplemental brief, plaintiffs point out that the deponent testified that she only 

knew of defendant’s meal break policy “from 2008 until the present,” and that her 

testimony regarding the policy from 2005 to 2008 was based on what other, unidentified 

people had told her, “as far as they remembered.” See Dkt. 106-2, Ex. A at 57:3-17. 

Such testimony, without more, is not sufficient to warrant summary judgment. 

 Category (3) consists of the documents mentioned in the “person most 

Case 4:13-cv-05097-PJH Document 117 Filed 11/03/15 Page 2 of 5
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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of California 

knowledgeable” deposition – specifically, they are described by defendant as “a series of 

documents relating to Ecolab’s meal break policy.” Dkt. 106-2, Ex. N. From the court’s 

own review, it appears that these documents are the same as the ones submitted in 

connection with defendant’s motion for summary judgment and cited by the court in its 

previous order. Compare Dkt. 106-2, Ex. N with Dkt. 78, Ex. III. The court previously 

considered those documents, and found that “there remains a triable issue of fact 

regarding the existence of meal break violations from December 21, 2005 to October 11, 

2008.” The court reaches the same conclusion here. At best, defendant’s evidence 

shows that it had a written meal break policy in place as early as June 2007, but in 

contrast to the post-October 2008 evidence, the June 2007 policy does not establish that 

meal breaks were actually made available. 

Under the California Supreme Court’s concurring opinion in Brinker Restaurant 

Corp. v. Superior Court, “if an employer’s records show no meal period for a given shift 

over five hours, a rebuttable presumption arises that the employee was not relieved of 

duty and no meal period was provided.” 53 Cal.4th 1004, 1053 (2012). Although the 

cited quote is taken from a concurring opinion, it has been followed by at least two federal 

district courts in California. See Alcantar v. Hobart Service, 2013 WL 156530, at *2 (C.D. 

Cal. Jan. 15, 2013); Ricaldai v. U.S. Investigations Services, LLC, 878 F.Supp.2d 1038, 

1043 (C.D. Cal. 2012). 

In addition, defendant’s cited cases are distinguishable. In each case, the court 

found that the plaintiff had presented “no evidence to support the claim that defendant 

discouraged plaintiff from taking breaks or required her to work during breaks.” Green v. 

Lawrence Service Co., 2013 WL 3907506 at *8 (C.D. Cal. July 23, 2013); see also 

Roberts v. Trimac Transportation Services, 2013 WL 4647223, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 28, 

2013) (“The problem for plaintiff is that he has provided no competent evidence to 

support his assertions” that defendant’s “actual policy is to discourage meal breaks”). In 

contrast, plaintiffs in this case have provided evidence that defendant’s promise of “24/7” 

availability actually impeded the class members’ ability to take meal breaks in 

Case 4:13-cv-05097-PJH Document 117 Filed 11/03/15 Page 3 of 5
4 

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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of California 

accordance with the policy. See Dkt. 111-1, Ex. 4 at 111:8-14; Ex. 6 at 27:16-29:8. 

Plaintiffs’ evidence serves to make this case less similar to Green and Roberts, and more 

similar to Antemate v. Estenson Logistics, LLC, where a district court found that, 

notwithstanding a “facially valid meal break policy,” the defendant’s “informal policies and 

practices create an environment in which [plaintiffs] are routinely pressured not to take 

compliant breaks.” Antemate, 2015 WL 3822267, at *2 (C.D. Cal. June 15, 2015). 

 Finally, category (2) of defendant’s newly-submitted evidence consists of 

deposition testimony from 12 class members stating that they took meal breaks. At best, 

this testimony conflicts with the evidence submitted by plaintiffs, and demonstrates the 

existence of a material issue of disputed fact – but plaintiffs also point out that the 

testimony speaks only to the deponents’ current practice of taking meal breaks, and says 

nothing about their practice of taking meal breaks between December 2005 and October 

2008. 

 For the foregoing reasons, the court finds that there still remains a triable issue of 

fact regarding the existence of meal break violations from December 21, 2005 to October 

11, 2008, and thus, defendant’s motion for summary judgment on that issue is DENIED. 

 The court now turns to defendant’s motion for decertification, which was not 

expressly discussed by the parties in their supplemental briefs. As mentioned above, the 

court deferred ruling on the motion as to the meal break claim, stating that it would “reassess the predominance analysis after the parties have submitted their supplemental 

evidence and briefing.” Dkt. 104 at 25. As mentioned in that order, to maintain 

certification, the court must find that “questions of law or fact common to class members 

predominate over any questions affecting only individual members.” Id. at 23 (citing Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3)). 

 Given the standard articulated in Brinker, which provides for a rebuttable 

presumption that no meal break was taken in the absence of any records, it seems 

plausible that defendant may present evidence to rebut that presumption as to a number 

of the class members. If that were to occur, it also seems plausible that individual issues 

Case 4:13-cv-05097-PJH Document 117 Filed 11/03/15 Page 4 of 5
United States District Court 

Northern District of California 

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 

wo

sce

pre

tes

tak

to 

the

Da

ould predom

enario rema

esumption a

stimony cite

king meal b

October 20

e meal brea

IT IS S

ated: Nove

minate over

ains hypoth

as to any in

ed by defen

breaks, not t

008. For tha

ak claim. 

SO ORDER

mber 3, 20

r common o

hetical, as d

ndividual cla

ndant speak

their practic

at reason, d

RED. 

15 

5

ones as to t

defendant h

ass membe

ks only to c

ce during th

defendant’s

__

PH

Un

the meal br

has not sub

ers. As disc

ertain class

he relevant 

s motion fo

__________

HYLLIS J. H

nited States

reak claim. 

bmitted evid

cussed abo

s members

time period

r decertifica

__________

HAMILTON

s District Ju

 However, 

dence that r

ove, the dep

’ current pr

d of Decem

ation is DEN

__________

udge 

such a 

rebuts the 

position 

ractice of 

mber 2005 

NIED as to 

_______ 

Case 4:13-cv-05097-PJH Document 117 Filed 11/03/15 Page 5 of 5