Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-05003/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-05003-30/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 15:2(a) Fair Labor Standards Act

---

United States District Court

For the 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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JUAN SARAVIA, individually and on

behalf of all others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

DYNAMEX, INC., DYNAMEX FLEET

SERVICES LLC, DYNAMEX

OPERATIONS EAST, INC., and

DYNAMEX OPERATIONS WEST, INC.,

Defendants. /

No. C 14-05003 WHA

ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’

MOTIONS TO DISMISS

CERTAIN OPT-IN PLAINTIFFS

INTRODUCTION

In this wage-and-hour collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act defendants

move to dismiss several opt-in plaintiffs without prejudice and separately moves to dismiss two

categories of opt-in plaintiffs with prejudice. For the reasons stated below, defendants’ motions

are GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.

STATEMENT

The facts of this case are discussed in greater detail in the order denying defendants’

motion to decertify the collective action, issued concurrently with this order. Briefly, our

plaintiffs are a collective of individuals who contracted with defendants Dynamex, Inc.,

Dynamex Fleet Services LLC, Dynamex Operations East, Inc., and Dynamex Operations West,

Inc., (collectively, “Dynamex”) to provide delivery services for Dynamex’s clients. 

Case 3:14-cv-05003-WHA Document 206 Filed 09/30/16 Page 1 of 9
United States District Court

For the 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

2

Plaintiffs contend Dynamex incorrectly classified them as independent contractors,

rather than as employees, and they bring claims seeking overtime and minimum wages they

claim to have been denied on that basis.

In October 2015, an order conditionally certified the collective action for the purpose of

facilitating notice to potential opt-in plaintiffs. The class administrator received one hundred

sixty consent-to-join forms. 

Dynamex now brings three separate motions seeking to dismiss (i) eighteen individuals

without prejudice based on various procedural issues, (ii) fifteen individuals with prejudice for

failing to appear at their depositions, and (iii) twenty-five individuals with prejudice for failure

to produce adequate tax records. (The categories overlap in part.) This order follows full

briefing on each motion and oral argument.

ANALYSIS

Rule 37(b)(2) authorizes the imposition of sanctions for not obeying a discovery order,

including dismissing the action or entering default judgment. Terminating sanctions, however,

are available only “in ‘extreme circumstances’ and where the violation is due to willfulness, bad

faith, or fault of the party.” Fair Housing of Marin v. Combs, 285 F.3d 899, 905 (9th Cir. 2002) 

1. MOTION TO DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

Dynamex moves to dismiss several defendants without prejudice. The subjects of this

motion fall into four categories: (i) an individual, Jose Santos, who did not work for Dynamex

in California, (ii) seven individuals who filed their consent forms after the deadline, (iii) nine

individuals who were not part of the defined collective action yet completed consent forms

anyway, (iv) an individual, Charlie Hastanand, who passed away years prior to the

commencement of this action. 

Plaintiffs do not oppose Dynamex’s motion to dismiss these opt-ins without prejudice

(Dkt. No. 182). Accordingly, this section addresses each category below. 

A. Jose Santos.

Opt-in plaintiff Jose Santos never contracted with Dynamex in California. He only

contracted in Pennsylvania (Perez Decl. ¶ 5). In February 2015, long before this collective

Case 3:14-cv-05003-WHA Document 206 Filed 09/30/16 Page 2 of 9
United States District Court

For the 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

3

action was conditionally certified, plaintiffs’ counsel filed a form on behalf of Santos indicating

his consent to join the action (Dkt. No. 15). The order conditionally certifying this collective

action limited the scope of the action to individuals who contracted in California. Accordingly,

all agree that Santos is not a member of this collective action. Santos’s claims are hereby

DISMISSED without prejudice.

B. Late Opt-ins.

Seven individuals — Somching Kapkitkajon, Luis Angel Rodriguez, Ricardo Torres,

Jeffrey David Dicus, Hany Michaels, Dulce Lopez, and Eric Embleton — filed their forms

opting in to this action after the deadline of March 19. None of the late opt-ins offered any

good cause for their late joinder. Plaintiffs do not oppose the dismissal of these seven

individuals. Their claims are hereby DISMISSED without prejudice.

C. Opt-ins Who Should Never Have Received Consent Forms.

Nine individuals — Amrit Sing, Jasbir Sing, Ariel Capeletti, Narsiso Serpas, Andrew

Yauw, Manjit Sing, Edwin Kok, Rosa E. Menendez-Turcios, and Douglas Sass — submitted

consent forms although they did not fall within the definition of the conditionally certified

collective action. They appear to have submitted photocopies of forms sent to individuals who

did satisfy that definition, but elected not to opt-in. Their claims are hereby DISMISSED without

prejudice.

D. Charlie Hastanand.

Opt-in plaintiff Charlie Hastanand passed away in October 2012, several years before

this lawsuit was filed. Nevertheless, a consent form was filed on his behalf. Neither side offers

any means for treating Hastanand’s estate as a member of this opt-in collective action (nor for

evaluating the legal issue of whether Hastanand could be deemed to consent to joining this

action). Accordingly, Dynamex argues (and plaintiffs do not dispute) that he should be

dismissed without prejudice on that basis.

While the motion to dismiss Hastanand without prejudice remained pending, Dynamex

served Hastanand with a discovery request seeking his tax documents, which his estate never

produced. Dynamex argues that, rather than dismissing Hastanand without prejudice, he should

Case 3:14-cv-05003-WHA Document 206 Filed 09/30/16 Page 3 of 9
United States District Court

For the 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

1

 Dynamex quotes this passage in its entirety in its brief, however it reproduces the final sentence as

follows: “If an opt-in plaintiff fails to appear for a deposition, his or her case may be dismissed with

prejudice. . . . No excuses.” Although the phrase “No excuses” did appear at the conclusion of the quoted

order, it appeared in connection with discussion of a different subject (meeting and conferring to schedule

depositions). Dynamex’s reproduction of the quoted material elides fully two paragraphs in order to leave the

false impression that the Court would not even consider any excuse for an opt-in’s failure to appear at a

deposition (Dkt. No. 173, Defs.’ Mtn. at 2). Dynamex repurposes the phrase “no excuses” as a coda on its own

argument (id. at 11).

The Court is disappointed that counsel for Dynamex would engage in such dishonest citation.

4

be dismissed with prejudice for failing to comply with the order requiring disclosure of tax

documents. Dynamex’s positions are inconsistent. 

Dynamex’s motion to dismiss Hastanand without prejudice is premised on his inability

to participate in the litigation. On the other hand, Dynamex seeks to hold Hastanand’s estate

accountable for that failure, to the extent the estate holds a claim at all. This order adopts the

less severe response of dismissal without prejudice.

2. MOTION TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE

FOR FAILURE TO APPEAR AT DEPOSITIONS.

Dynamex moves to dismiss fifteen opt-in plaintiffs with prejudice for failure to appear at

their depositions. In April 2016, without conferring with plaintiffs’ counsel, Dynamex noticed

depositions for several opt-ins to occur in May. Discovery was set to close on June 30. 

Plaintiffs’ counsel objected, asserting that the depositions were prohibited by the ten-deposition

limit of Rule 30. Plaintiffs counsel brought this issue to the Court amid a flurry of discovery

disputes. On June 7, the Court ruled as follows (Dkt. No. 123):

[T]he ten-deposition limit of Rule 30 has no application to a case

like this where we have 150 opt-in plaintiffs. Each is liable to sit

for a deposition. Plaintiff’s objection is very unreasonable.

Each plaintiff’s case must be adjudicated on its own merits and

Dynamex is correct that it is entitled to reasonable discovery as to

each opt-in plaintiff. If an opt-in plaintiff fails to appear for a

deposition, his or her case may be dismissed with prejudice.1

On June 8, the parties met and conferred in the Court’s jury room regarding their

remaining discovery disputes. At that meeting, plaintiffs’ counsel informed counsel for

Dynamex that six opt-ins — Rafael Nunn, Luis Escovedo, Vladimir Koval, Salvador Rico,

Doug Tank, and Zayed Hararah — who had not yet appeared for depositions withdrew their

consent to pursue this action. At a hearing before the undersigned following the parties’ meetCase 3:14-cv-05003-WHA Document 206 Filed 09/30/16 Page 4 of 9
United States District Court

For the 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

5

and-confer session, the Court set several dates for depositions of opt-in plaintiffs that had

already been noticed for deposition as well as eight further individuals that plaintiffs expected

to call as witnesses at trial. 

The Court stated (Dkt. No. 131, Tr. at 20):

All right. Those are your dates. If those people don’t show up and

they’ve got a case, we dismiss the case with prejudice. So you’ve

got to get them there. Now, if you two stipulate to a different date

before June 30, that’s okay. You can do that. It’s got to be in

writing. But, otherwise, they’ve got to show up on the date.

The parties subsequently agreed on a procedure for the forthcoming depositions,

including confirmation one business day in advance (and greater notice for witnesses requiring

a translator). Notwithstanding the schedule set by the Court and the procedure established by

the parties, plaintiffs’ counsel lost touch with seven opt-ins and could not timely confirm their

appearances at their depositions. Two more opt-ins failed to appear even though plaintiffs’

counsel confirmed their appearance. 

Dynamex moves to dismiss fifteen opt-ins with prejudice for failing to appear at their

depositions: (i) the six who withdrew their consent, (ii) the seven who never confirmed their

deposition appearances, and (iii) the two who failed to appear at their depositions despite

confirmation.

Plaintiffs oppose the dismissal of two opt-in plaintiffs — Angelina Ramirez and Edgar

Valdez — and ask that the remaining dismissals be without prejudice.

A. Angelina Ramirez.

At the discovery hearing on June 8, the Court ordered the deposition of opt-in plaintiff

Angelina Ramirez to occur on June 17. At Ramirez’s request the parties rescheduled for

June 20. Plaintiffs’ counsel failed to timely confirm Ramirez’s appearance at her deposition or

to produce documents on her behalf on the business day before her deposition, pursuant to the

procedure established by the parties. An hour and a half after the deadline to confirm her

deposition appearance, counsel for plaintiffs informed Dynamex that Ramirez would not

appear. Dynamex canceled the court reporter and informed the attorney set to take the

deposition in Los Angeles that it had been canceled.

Case 3:14-cv-05003-WHA Document 206 Filed 09/30/16 Page 5 of 9
United States District Court

For the 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

6

The next day, Ramirez appeared at Dynamex’s Los Angeles office (where the deposition

had been scheduled to occur), documents in hand, ready for her deposition. Without plaintiffs’

counsel and without a court reporter or the deposing attorney, Dynamex could not take

Ramirez’s deposition in those circumstances.

Plaintiffs’ counsel quickly sought to reschedule Ramirez’s deposition. They explained

that Ramirez had fallen out of touch because her daughter had been hospitalized following a car

accident (Hart Decl., Exh. F; Ramirez Decl. ¶¶ 4–6). Ramirez remains willing to sit for her

deposition (id. at ¶¶ 10–11). She produced tax documents in response to Dynamex’s discovery

requests.

 The scheduling snafu was unfortunate, but it does not warrant the extreme sanction of

dismissal. Nevertheless, Dynamex is entitled to discovery regarding Ramirez. Accordingly,

this order DENIES Dynamex’s motion to dismiss as to Ramirez on the condition that she sit for a

six-hour deposition by THURSDAY, OCTOBER 20. Failure to appear for a deposition by that

date will result in dismissal with prejudice.

B. Edgar Valdez.

Dynamex originally noticed the deposition of opt-in plaintiff Edgar Valdez for January

28, 2016. The parties agreed to continue the deposition to June 14 due to medical

complications. Although plaintiffs’ counsel confirmed that Valdez would appear for his

deposition the previous evening, counsel informed Dynamex minutes before the scheduled start

time that Valdez could not appear due to further medical complications of which he learned the

day before (Valdez Decl. ¶ 4). 

Dynamex argues that Valdez’s failure to inform his counsel of his newly-developed

medical complication immediately, waiting instead until the following day (the day of his

deposition) warrants dismissal with prejudice. Dynamex’s position is too extreme. Valdez

remains willing to sit for a deposition and to otherwise participate in the action. Accordingly,

this order DENIES Dynamex’s motion as to Valdez on the condition that he sit for a six-hour

deposition by THURSDAY, OCTOBER 20. Failure to appear for a deposition by that date will

result in dismissal with prejudice.

Case 3:14-cv-05003-WHA Document 206 Filed 09/30/16 Page 6 of 9
United States District Court

For the 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

7

C. The Remaining Thirteen Deposition No-Shows.

As to the six individuals who withdrew their consent to join the action after receiving

deposition notices, Dynamex does not offer any argument for dismissing those individuals with

prejudice. Thus, this order DISMISSES the claims of Rafael Nunn, Luis Escovedo, Vladimir

Koval, Salvador Rico, Doug Tank, and Zayed Hararah without prejudice.

As to the remaining seven who offered no excuse for failing to appear, the Court

repeatedly warned that failure to appear could result in dismissal with prejudice. Indeed, the

fact that the Court ordered their depositions to occur on a specific date was only due to their

disregard for timely noticed depositions in the first place. The opt-ins’ complete disregard for

the Court’s orders prejudiced Dynamex by disrupting its preparation for trial and forcing it to

bear costs for translators and court reporters as well as the hours of work spent preparing for

depositions that never occurred. This order DISMISSES the claims of Esmeralda Castro, Frank

Williams, Alberto Alceda, Rodrigo Flores, Alberto Paez, Miguel Ponce, and Dale Jeske with

prejudice.

3. MOTION TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE FOR

INADEQUATE DISCLOSURE OF TAX DOCUMENTS.

As part of the saga of discovery disputes between our litigants, Dynamex sought tax

documents from several opt-in plaintiffs. After contentious motion practice, the Court ordered

thirty-six opt-ins to produce (Dkt. No. 171):

all federal tax records within their possession or that they have

authority to obtain (such as from an accountant or from TurboTax)

relevant to their claims herein for all years from 2008 to the

present during which they contracted with Dynamex and for which

they contend they should have been classified as “employees.” 

The records to be produced shall include federal tax returns, all

informational forms, including 1099s, W2s, 1040s, 1120s, 1125-

As, and all accompanying schedules to the same extent submitted

by the plaintiffs to the Internal Revenue Services.

The order also required plaintiffs that had already produced some tax documents to

supplement their production. It set a deadline of August 15 at noon and stated “[f]ailure to

timely comply will likely result in dismissal from this action with prejudice or in an adverse

inference.”

Case 3:14-cv-05003-WHA Document 206 Filed 09/30/16 Page 7 of 9
United States District Court

For the 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

8

 Twenty-five opt-ins, however, failed to produce all tax documents or a declaration

explaining all deficiencies, although, with one exception (Victor Moreno), all produced some

tax records and declarations explaining most deficiencies.

With the exception of Victor Moreno, whose failure to produce tax documents or a

declaration detailing the reason for any missing documents remains unexplained, the

deficiencies in the tax documents produced were relatively minor, to the extent they constituted

failure at all. Thus, with the exception of Moreno, all of the remaining plaintiffs substantially

complied with the Court’s order, and the Court will not dismiss their claims on the basis of any

minor deficiency; however, this is without prejudice to the Court drawing or allowing, on

proper instruction, the jury to draw an adverse inference with regard to evidence relating to

those defendants.

On the other hand, Moreno’s failure to produce any tax documents or a declaration

explaining that failure remains unexplained. Plaintiffs note that Moreno has otherwise been

cooperative throughout this lawsuit, including by appearing at his deposition and timely

producing documents. Nevertheless, all opt-ins have been on notice of the potential

consequences of failing to comply with the Court’s order, and plaintiffs offer no defense

whatsoever for Moreno’s noncompliance. Thus, this order DISMISSES Moreno’s claims with

prejudice.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, Dynamex’s motions are GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED

IN PART as follows:

• Charlie Hastanand, Jose Santos, Somching Kapkitkajon,

Luis Angel Rodriguez, Ricardo Torres, Jeffrey David Dicus,

Hany Michaels, Dulce Lopez, Eric Embleton, Amrit Sing,

Jasbir Sing, Ariel Capeletti, Narsiso Serpas, Andrew Yauw,

Manjit Sing, Edwin Kok, Rosa E. Menendez-Turcios,

Douglas Sass, Rafael Nunn, Luis Escovedo, Vladimir

Koval, Salvador Rico, Doug Tank, and Zayed Hararah are

DISMISSED without prejudice

• Victor Moreno, Esmeralda Castro, Frank Williams, Alberto

Alceda, Rodrigo Flores, Alberto Paez, Miguel Ponce, and

Dale Jeske are DISMISSED with prejudice.

Case 3:14-cv-05003-WHA Document 206 Filed 09/30/16 Page 8 of 9
United States District Court

For the 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

9

• Angelina Ramirez and Edgar Valdez must each sit for a sixhour deposition by OCTOBER 20. Failure to do so will result

in dismissal with prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 29, 2016. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:14-cv-05003-WHA Document 206 Filed 09/30/16 Page 9 of 9