Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-02061/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-02061-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Fair Labor Standards

---

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 - 09cv2061 WQH (CAB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JENNIFER MEINTS, individually, and

on behalf of all other members of the

general public similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 09cv2061 WQH (CAB)

ORDER

vs.

REGIS CORPORATION, a Minnesota

Corporation,

Defendant.

HAYES, Judge:

The matters before the Court are Plaintiff’s Motion to Lift Stay (Doc. # 21) and

Defendant’s Motion to Stay Proceedings (Doc. # 22).

BACKGROUND

On September 21, 2009, Plaintiff initiated this action by filing a complaint. (Doc. # 1). The

complaint is a proposed class action against Defendant for several alleged violations of the

California Labor Code. Id. On November 30, 2009, Defendant filed an answer to the

complaint. (Doc. # 7). On December 1, 2009, Defendant filed a Motion to Stay Proceedings

on the grounds that there is a class action with many of the same claims pending against

Defendant in the Central District of California. (Doc. # 13). The Court granted the motion on

February 16, 2010 and stayed the case until June 14, 2010. (Doc. # 18). The Court held that

a stay was appropriate because a pending settlement agreement in Lopez v. Regis Corporation,

08cv8221 RKG (CWx) (C.D. Cal.), a putative class action in the Central District of California

Case 3:09-cv-02061-WQH-CAB Document 29 Filed 08/02/10 Page 1 of 6
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 - 09cv2061 WQH (CAB)

“may prevent Plaintiff from proceeding with this case as a class action as to any of her claims.”

Id. at 5. The Court concluded that “allowing Plaintiff to proceed to class discovery” under

these circumstances “would waste judicial resources and require Defendant to expend

significant effort to comply with discovery requests in a case which is unlikely to result in a

class certification.” Id. The Court further held that “[a]ny request for a further stay beyond

June 14, 2010, shall be filed as a new motion.” (Doc. # 18). On April 13, 2010, Plaintiff filed

her Motion to Lift Stay. (Doc. # 21). On April 19, 2010, Defendant filed its Motion to Stay

Proceedings. (Doc. # 22).

ALLEGATIONS OF THE COMPLAINT

Plaintiff alleges claims on behalf of Defendant’s employees who were underpaid in

violation of California law. (Doc. # 1 at ¶ 8). Plaintiff alleges claims for (1) violation of

California Labor Code § 510 and § 1198 for failing to pay overtime; (2) violation of California

Labor Code § 226.7 and § 512(a) for failing to pay meal period premiums; (3) violation of

California Labor Code § 226.7 for failure to pay rest period premiums; (4) violation

of California Labor Code § 2800 and § 2802 for failing to pay business expenses; (5) violation

of California Labor Code § 1194, § 1197, and § 1197.1 for failure to pay minimum wages;

(6) violation of California Labor Code §§ 201-202 for failure to timely pay wages upon

termination; (7) violation of California Labor Code § 204 for failing to pay wages on time;

(8) violation of California Labor Code § 226(a) for noncompliant wage statements; and

(9) violation of California Labor Code § 17200. Id. at ¶ 25-91. Plaintiff proposes three

subclasses of plaintiffs: (1) an unpaid wages subclass of all employees who received hourly

or mixed hourly and commission income while working for Defendant at a store location in

California from four years before the complaint was filed until the date of class certification;

(2) a non-compliant wages subclass of all employees who received a wage statement from a

year before the filing of the complaint until the date of class certification; and (3) an

unreimbursed business expenses subclass of all employees who paid business-related expenses

in California from four years before the complaint was filed until the date of class certification.

Id. 

Case 3:09-cv-02061-WQH-CAB Document 29 Filed 08/02/10 Page 2 of 6
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 - 09cv2061 WQH (CAB)

Plaintiff alleges the following questions of law and fact are common to the class:

(1) whether Defendant willfully violated the California Labor Code by “failure to pay wages,

without abatement or reduction;” (2) whether Defendant required employees to work over

eight hours per day, over twelve hours per day, or over 40 hours per week and failed to pay

overtime; (3) whether Defendant required employees to work during meal periods without

compensation; (4) whether Defendant required employees to work during rest periods without

compensation; (5) whether Defendant failed to reimburse employees for business expenses

incurred in the scope of their employment; (6) whether Defendant failed to pay minimum

wages; (7) whether Defendant failed to report wages as required by California Labor Code

§ 226; (8) whether Defendant failed to pay employees all wages earned; (9) whether

Defendant’s conduct was willful or reckless; (10) whether Defendant engaged in unfair

business practices; and (11) damages.

CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES

Plaintiff contends that the case should not be further stayed because the proposed

settlement in the Lopez class action which was previously pending in the Central District has

been denied and the case has been dismissed. (Doc. # 21-1 at 2). Plaintiff attached orders

from the Lopez case denying conditional class certification and dismissing the case. (Doc.

# 21-2 at 7-14).

Defendant contends that two other pending putative class action lawsuits based on the

same labor practices Plaintiff challenges which were filed before Plaintiff initiated this action

require staying this case under the first-to-file rule. (Doc. # 22 at 6). One of the cases

Defendant identifies is Mook, which had previously been consolidated with Lopez in the

Central District of California, and was remanded to state court when Lopez was dismissed. Id.

at 8. The other case Defendant identifies is Manukyan, which is pending in the Central District

of California. Id. Defendant contends that the parties in this action and in the Mook and

Manukyan actions are identical. Id. at 12. Defendant contends that the issues are

“substantially similar” in all three cases, although Plaintiff raises claims as to meal and rest

breaks that are not raised by Mook or Manukyan. Id.

Case 3:09-cv-02061-WQH-CAB Document 29 Filed 08/02/10 Page 3 of 6
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

- 4 - 09cv2061 WQH (CAB)

Defendant further contends that Plaintiff’s claims about rest and meal breaks should be

stayed pending the outcome of the California Supreme Court decision in Brinker, which will

“decide the legal standard applicable to many of Plaintiff’s claims and will dictate what

evidence is relevant to those claims . . . .” Id. at 15-16. Defendant contends that these claims

should be stayed to avoid “substantial discovery and motion practice under the incorrect legal

standard . . . .” Id. at 16.

In her opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Stay Proceedings, Plaintiff contends that the

first-to-file rule does not apply because the actions are not identical. (Doc. # 27 at 8). Plaintiff

contends that her “meal and rest break claims and unreimbursed business expenses subclass

raise[] factual and legal claims unlike any in either the Mook or the Manukyan actions.” Id.

Plaintiff contends that even if a stay is appropriate as to her other claims, her claims related to

meal and rest breaks and unreimbursed business expenses should not be stayed because those

issues will not be addressed by the other previously filed lawsuits. Id. Plaintiff notes that

Defendant has reached a settlement agreement in Mook after a mediation in which Plaintiff

participated, but contends that this action should proceed “unless and until the proposed

settlement is approved and finalized . . . . ” Id. at 9.

Plaintiff contends that a stay pending the resolution of the appeal in Brinker is

inappropriate because Brinker only addresses some of her claims. Id. at 11. Plaintiff contends

that she will suffer harm if the case is stayed while the California Supreme Court is

adjudicating Brinker because it will delay conducting discovery, which may prejudice

Plaintiff’s case. Id. Plaintiff contends that a stay will “likely deplete the number of witnesses

available to Plaintiff’s counsel to interview and the corresponding evidence they may have,

since over time, the witnesses are more apt to move and discard potentially relevant

documents.” Id.

In its reply, Defendant contends that the settlement agreement reached in a mediation

held on May 10, 2010 in Mook will bar Plaintiff from “continuing most or all of her claims

under the doctrines of estoppel and res judicata.” (Doc. # 28 at 2). Defendant contends that

Plaintiff was a participant in the Mook mediation and that Plaintiff will have an opportunity

Case 3:09-cv-02061-WQH-CAB Document 29 Filed 08/02/10 Page 4 of 6
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 - 09cv2061 WQH (CAB)

to object to the settlement agreement in Mook. Id. at 3, 5. In an attached declaration,

Defendant’s counsel states “on or before June 28, 2010, counsel for Mook . . . will seek Judge

Bauer’s approval of the mediated settlement agreement via a motion for preliminary approval

to be heard on that date. If Judge Bauer approves the settlement, all of Meints’ claims in her

putative class action, including any claims for missed meal and rest breaks and failure to

reimburse employees for business expenses, will be included in the class settlement.” (Doc.

28-1 at 2.

ANALYSIS

The stay that the Court previously granted in this case expired on June 14, 2010. (Doc.

# 18 at 5). Plaintiff’s Motion to Lift Stay is denied as moot.

As was the case with the Lopez action, there is significant overlap between Plaintiff’s

claims in this case and the claims being raised in Mook, which was filed on December 21, 2008

in the Superior Court of California for the County of San Diego. See Doc. # 22-4. Both

Plaintiff in this case and the plaintiff in Mook allege claims under California law for unpaid

overtime, unpaid minimum wages, failure to timely pay wages upon termination, failure to

timely pay wages during employment, and unfair competition. Compare Doc. # 1 (Plaintiff’s

Compl.) with Doc. # 22-4 at 36-39 (Compl. in Mooks). Plaintiff alleges claims related to rest

and meal breaks and unpaid business expenses which are not alleged in Mooks, but the

proposed settlement in Mooks would release Defendant from further liability for all claims

under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the California Labor Code for the entire statute of

limitations period. A motion to approve the proposed settlement is currently pending before

the state court adjudicating Mooks. If the Mooks settlement is approved by the court, it is

likely to prevent Plaintiff from proceeding with this case as a class action as to any of her

claims. Allowing Plaintiff to proceed to class discovery in this case when a settlement

potentially barring her class action is pending would waste judicial resources and require

Defendant to expend significant effort to comply with discovery requests in a case which is

unlikely to result in a class certification. The motion to stay is granted. The case is stayed

until October 25, 2010.

Case 3:09-cv-02061-WQH-CAB Document 29 Filed 08/02/10 Page 5 of 6
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 - 09cv2061 WQH (CAB)

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

(1) Plaintiff’s Motion to Lift Stay (Doc. # 21) is DENIED AS MOOT.

(2) Defendant’s Motion to Stay Proceedings (Doc. # 22) is GRANTED.

(3) The case is stayed until October 25, 2010. On October 25, 2010, the parties

shall submit a report regarding the status of Mooks v. Regis Corp., 37-2008-

00098337-CU-DE-CTL (Super. Ct. San Diego, Cal.). Any request for a further

stay beyond October 25, 2010 shall be filed as a new motion.

DATED: August 2, 2010

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-02061-WQH-CAB Document 29 Filed 08/02/10 Page 6 of 6