Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-03791/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-03791-34/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

1

Case No. 14-CV-03791-LHK 

ORDER CLARIFYING CLAIMS REMAINING FOR TRIAL

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

SAN JOSE DIVISION

NATHALIE THUY VAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

LANGUAGE LINE, LLC,

Defendant.

Case No. 14-CV-03791-LHK 

ORDER CLARIFYING CLAIMS 

REMAINING FOR TRIAL

After reviewing the parties’ filings, and in light of Plaintiff Nathalie Thuy Van’s 

(“Plaintiff”) pro se status, the Court provides clarification on certain of the claims remaining in the 

case. Trial is scheduled to begin the week of July 25, 2016.

A. Plaintiff’s Claim under California Labor Code § 226

In Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, Plaintiff presented claims under both 

California Labor Code § 226(a) and § 226(c). The Court granted summary judgment as to 

Plaintiff’s claim under California Labor Code § 226(c), which provides for timely inspection of 

records, because that claim is time barred. ECF No. 244 at 34–35. However, the Court denied 

summary judgment on Plaintiff’s claim under California Labor Code § 226(a), which requires 

employers to provide accurate itemized wage statements. Id. at 36. Plaintiff’s claim under section 

Case 5:14-cv-03791-LHK Document 353 Filed 07/22/16 Page 1 of 3
2

Case No. 14-CV-03791-LHK 

ORDER CLARIFYING CLAIMS REMAINING FOR TRIAL

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

226(a), for accurate itemized wage statements, was not dismissed and Plaintiff may recover for 

violations of section 226(a) within the one year statute of limitations.

At summary judgment, Plaintiff argued that Defendant violated section 226(a) because 

Plaintiff’s wage statements “did not reflect all of the overtime and hours she worked.” ECF No. 

211 (Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment), at 11. That is the claim that Plaintiff may 

present at trial. 

Plaintiff did not argue at summary judgment that Defendant violated section 226(a) by 

forging wage statements and producing these forged wage statements as discovery in the instant 

case. Nor did Plaintiff present this argument in her complaint, or in her current filings. See ECF 

No. 61 (First Amended Complaint), ¶¶ 26–30. Thus, Plaintiff may not argue that Defendant 

violated section 226(a) by forging wage statements and producing these forged wage statements in 

discovery. Moreover, Plaintiff may not argue at trial that Defendant’s alleged wage statement 

forgery during discovery is a violation of section 226(a).

B. Plaintiff’s Claim under California’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”)

Plaintiff seeks to recover, under the UCL, civil penalties in the amount of $6,000 per 

violation. However, the section cited by Plaintiff in Plaintiff’s objections to the proposed 

preliminary jury instructions and the Court’s pretrial conference order, California Business and

Professional Code section 17207, applies to “[a]ny person who intentionally violates any 

injunction prohibiting unfair competition issued pursuant to Section 17203.” No injunction has 

been issued against Language Line, LLC. In addition, civil penalties are only available to public 

prosecutors such as the Attorney General. Thus, section 17207 does not apply here, and Plaintiff 

may not recover civil penalties. 

Instead, Plaintiff may recover restitution. As explained in the summary judgment order, 

this means that Plaintiff may recover unlawfully withheld overtime wages, see Cortez v. Purolator

Air Filtration Prods. Co., 23 Cal. 4th 163, 177 (2000), and additional hours of pay for missed 

meal and rest breaks, see Valenzuela v. Giumarra Vineyars Corp., 614 F. Supp. 2d 1089 (E.D. 

Cal. 2009). Thus, under the UCL, Plaintiff may recover for overtime and meal and rest break 

Case 5:14-cv-03791-LHK Document 353 Filed 07/22/16 Page 2 of 3
3

Case No. 14-CV-03791-LHK 

ORDER CLARIFYING CLAIMS REMAINING FOR TRIAL

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

violations for the past four years. 

At summary judgment, the Court found that Defendant committed 136 meal and rest 

period violations in the past four years. Thus, at trial Plaintiff does not need to prove that these 

violations occurred. Rather, the issue at trial regarding these violations is the amount of restitution 

owed. 

C. Plaintiff’s Claim for Meal and Rest Periods

Plaintiff seeks to withdraw her stipulation that only 136 meal and rest period violations 

occurred. See ECF No. 294 (Plaintiff’s stipulation). However, based on the Impact 360 schedules 

provided at summary judgment, the Court found evidence of 136—not 144—violations. 

Accordingly, the Court will not change the stipulation to 144 violations. However, the Court has

amended the language of the preliminary jury instructions to clarify that the Court has found 136 

violations. See ECF No. 348 (Proposed Amendment to Preliminary Jury Instruction No. 13).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 22, 2016

______________________________________

LUCY H. KOH

United States District Judge

Case 5:14-cv-03791-LHK Document 353 Filed 07/22/16 Page 3 of 3