Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02376/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02376-13/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JASON CAMPBELL and

SARAH SOBEK, individually,

and on behalf of all other

similarly situated current

and former employees of 

PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP,,

NO. CIV. S-06-2376 LKK/GGH

Plaintiffs,

v.

PRICEWATERHOUSE COOPERS, LLP, O R D E R

a Limited Liability Partnership;,

and DOES 1-100, inclusive,

Defendant.

 /

This is a class action against PriceWaterhouseCoopers (PwC)

for overtime, meal and rest break violations, wage statement

claims, and waiting time penalties. Previously, on March 25, 2008,

the court granted in part plaintiffs’ motion for class

certification, certifying a class of individuals who worked as

unlicensed associates in PwC’s Attest division at any time from

October 27, 2002 to the present and were classified as exempt

employees. Pending before the court are two motions. First,

Case 2:06-cv-02376-TLN-AC Document 202 Filed 06/05/08 Page 1 of 8
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

2

defendant has filed a motion to stay. Second, plaintiffs have

filed a motion for approval of their proposed class notice and

notice plan. For the reasons explained below, the court denies the

motion to stay and grants the motion for approval of class notice.

I. Motion to Stay

District courts possess and inherent authority to stay

proceedings that is “‘incidental to the power inherent in every

court to control the disposition of the causes of the docket with

economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for

litigants.” See Rivers v. Walt Disney Co., 980 F. Supp. 1358, 1360

(C.D. Cal. 1997) (quoting Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254

(1936)). 

Here, PwC asserts two grounds for a stay. The first ground --

the parties’ petitions for interlocutory appeal, pending at the

time of the motion’s filing -- is now moot, as the Ninth Circuit

denied the petitions on May 16, 2008.

The second asserted ground is that a stay (at least with

respect to class notice) is warranted in light of two putative

class actions that have recently been transferred to this district:

Kress v. PriceWaterhouseCoopers, 08-965-LKK/GGH, and Le v.

PriceWaterhouseCoopers, 08-997-LKK/EFB. The scope of the proposed

Kress class is similar to that originally proposed here. Kress

Compl. ¶ 20 (defining class as “All persons employed by Defendants

in the State of California as salaried exempt employees to do

accounting work at any time within four years of the filing [of]

this complaint to the present but who were not licensed or

Case 2:06-cv-02376-TLN-AC Document 202 Filed 06/05/08 Page 2 of 8
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

3

certified by the State of California in the Practice of accounting

and were not paid overtime”). The scope of the proposed Le class

is broader, because in addition to seeking certification of a class

of unlicensed California associates under California law, the

plaintiff also seeks certification of a nationwide class of

unlicensed associates under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

Le Compl. ¶ 43.

Defendant argues that a stay would permit the court to resolve

class certification in Kress and Le first, and then, if

certification is granted, to issue a single, consolidated class

notice. Without prejudging the merits of certification in Kress

or Le, it seems unlikely that certification of a second class of

California associates under California law would be appropriate.

As plaintiffs note, it is not unusual for class actions to be filed

“on top of” an originally filed class action; but the later-filed

actions do not undo the original certification. The certification

of a second class would therefore likely be duplicative and

potentially lead to confusion among class members.

The FLSA claim presents a slightly more complicated issue, but

it too fails to support defendant’s request for a stay of issuing

class notice. First, assuming that a nationwide collective action

is certified, it is not at all clear that a consolidated class

notice would be better than serially issuing two separate notices.

The nationwide FLSA class would require putative class members to

opt-in if they wish to participate in the action, whereas the

certified California class only requires class members to opt-out

Case 2:06-cv-02376-TLN-AC Document 202 Filed 06/05/08 Page 3 of 8
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

4

if they choose not to participate in the action. While courts have

permitted the simultaneous use of both procedures, they have

recognized the potential for confusion in doing so. See Ellison

v. Autozone Inc., No. C06-07522 MJJ, 2007 WL 2701923, at *2 (N.D.

Cal. Sept. 13, 2007) (denying motion to strike state law claim but

noting that “[d]efendant may ultimately be able to demonstrate that

having concurrent opt-in and opt-out proceedings is unworkable or

would unduly confuse potential plaintiffs”). While issuing two

separate class notices may also not be ideal, it may lessen the

potential for confusion. See Ramirez v. RDO-BOS Farms, LLC, 2007

WL 273604, at *2 (D. Or. Jan. 23, 2007) (permitting certification

under both Rule 23 and FLSA where class notices would be issued

serially rather than in a joint notice).

Second, it is possible that the only appropriate nationwide

collective action that could be certified is one that carves out

California, in light of the class already certified here. Cf. In

re Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig. 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13228, at

*49-*50 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 26, 1999) (conditionally certifying

nationwide class that excluded members of certified state classes).

If true, the risk of confusion to class members may never

materialize, because the classes will not overlap.

Third, any benefit gained by staying class notice must be

weighed against the prejudice to plaintiffs in delaying the

prosecution of their case.

For all these reasons, the court concludes that a stay of

class notice is inappropriate. The potential that this action may

Case 2:06-cv-02376-TLN-AC Document 202 Filed 06/05/08 Page 4 of 8
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

5

be consolidated with Kress and Le does not change that conclusion.

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a). Even if the cases were consolidated

(which no party has yet requested), “consolidation is a purely

ministerial act.” New York v. Microsoft Corp., 209 F. Supp. 2d

132, 148 (D.D.C. 2002). It would not affect the scope of the class

that has already been certified. Accordingly, the court denies the

motion to stay.

II. Motion to Approve Class Notice

Plaintiffs also seek approval of their proposed class notice.

As directed by Rule 23(c), the class notice must “clearly and

concisely state in plain, easily understood language”: the nature

of the action; the definition of the class certified; the class

claims, issues, or defenses; that a class member may enter an

appearance through an attorney if the member so desires; that the

court will exclude from the class any member who requests

exclusion; the time and manner for requesting exclusion; and the

binding effect of a class judgment on members. Fed. R. Civ. P.

23(c)(3).

Contrary to defendant’s portrayal of the court’s certification

order, these elements have previously been adjudicated and decided.

As noted above, the certified class consists of individuals who

worked as unlicensed associates in PwC’s Attest division at any

time from October 27, 2002 to the present and were classified as

exempt employees. The class claims include those for overtime,

meal and rest break violations, wage statement claims, and waiting

time penalties based on California Labor Code sections 1174, 1194,

Case 2:06-cv-02376-TLN-AC Document 202 Filed 06/05/08 Page 5 of 8
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

 The court adopts by reference the list of legal claims in 1

plaintiffs’ proposed class notice. Class Notice at 3.

Plaintiffs have not stated a reason as to why they need 2

telephone numbers in addition to social security numbers.

6

510, 226.7, 226, 203, and Business and Professions Code section

17200. The defense is that the plaintiffs were properly 1

classified as exempt employees. The court also appointed Jason

Campbell and Sarah Sobek as class representatives and their

attorneys as class counsel.

 The majority of the purported defects in the proposed class

notice identified by defendant have subsequently been cured in an

amended notice. The amended notice amply comports with the

requirements of Rule 23(c)(2)(B).

The one final issue concerns whether defendant is required to

disclose class members’ telephone and social security numbers to

plaintiffs’ counsel. Defendant argues that such disclosure would

violate the privacy rights of its current and former employees.

Plaintiffs respond that in the event that mail is returned

undelivered, knowledge of the individual’s former mailing address

and social security number is helpful to ascertaining their new

address. Decl. of Marilyn J. Thompson ¶ 6. Rather than provide

the social security numbers of all class members, the court orders

that PwC provide such information where the notices are returned

undelivered, and the information is needed to obtain the new

address.2

////

Case 2:06-cv-02376-TLN-AC Document 202 Filed 06/05/08 Page 6 of 8
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

7

III. Conclusion

For the reasons explained above, the court orders as follows:

1. The motion to stay (Dock. No. 184) is DENIED.

2. The motion to approve class notice (Dock. No. 188) is

GRANTED.

a. The form of class noticed attached as Exhibit A to

plaintiff’s proposed order filed on May 23, 2008 is

approved for mailing.

b. PwC shall provide class counsel an electronic mailing

list that identifies each person employed by PwC in

California who, at any time during the period October

27, 2002 to the present, (a) worked as an associate in

the Attest division of PwC’s Assurance Line of Service,

(b) was not licensed as a certified public accountant by

the State of California for some or all of the period he

or she worked in this position, and (c) was classified

as an exempt employee while working in this position.

c. This mailing list shall be provided to class counsel

within 30 calendar days of the court’s entry of this

order.

d. The mailing list shall include PwC’s most current

mailing information for each class member, including (a)

name; (b) address or P.O. box; (c) city; (d) state; and

(e) zip code. Where mail is returned undelivered, PwC

shall provide class counsel with the class member’s

social security number.

Case 2:06-cv-02376-TLN-AC Document 202 Filed 06/05/08 Page 7 of 8
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

8

e. Plaintiff shall keep all class member data and

mailing list information confidential pursuant to the

parties’ confidentiality agreement and stipulated

protective order.

f. Plaintiffs shall disseminate by first class mail a

true and correct copy of the approved notice to each

class member identified in the mailing list provided by

PwC. This shall be done within 20 calendar days of

receipt of the mailing list.

g. Class members will be given 45 days to opt out of the

class. Accordingly, the last day to opt out shall be 45

days from the date notice is mailed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 4, 2008.

Case 2:06-cv-02376-TLN-AC Document 202 Filed 06/05/08 Page 8 of 8