Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-00507/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-00507-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 28:1332lr Diversity - Labor

---

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 Case No. 3:16-cv-00507-L-JLB

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID VARGAS, on behalf of 

himself and all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

v.

CENTRAL FREIGHT LINES, INC., 

and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,

Defendants.

Case No. 3:16-cv-00507-L-JLB

ORDER DENYING REVISED JOINT 

MOTION TO DISMISS CLAIMS

UNDER THE PRIVATE 

ATTORNEYS GENERAL ACT OF 

2004 (“PAGA”)

Complaint Filed: February 26, 2016

Pending before the Court in this putative class action is Revised Joint Motion to 

Dismiss Claims Under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 ("PAGA" and 

"Revised Joint Motion"). For the reasons which follow, the Revised Joint Motion is 

DENIED.

The operative Second Amended Class Action Complaint ("SAC") alleges 

several California Labor Code violations, including failure to provide meal periods, 

rest breaks, properly itemized wage statements, and wages upon termination. The 

complaint also includes an unfair competition claim under California Business and 

Professions Code Section 17200, and a claim for PAGA penalties. 

Plaintiff asserts that the putative class action is filed pursuant to Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 23, and alleges on behalf of "hundreds of employees . . . in nonCase 3:16-cv-00507-JLB Document 35 Filed 06/12/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 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

2 Case No. 3:16-cv-00507-L-JLB

 

exempt positions" that "[f]or at least four years prior to filing of this action through 

the present, Defendants consistently maintained and enforced . . . unlawful practices 

and policies" of requiring the class members to work without the meal and rest periods 

they were entitled to and without compensating them for the missed meal and rest 

periods as required by the California Labor Code. (SAC at 2, 7, 5-6.) Plaintiff 

asserted that "the amount of the aggregate claim of all Class Members is likely over 

the $5,000,000 threshold of the Class Action Fairness Act." (Id. at 3-4.) Defendant 

strenuously denies the allegations.

The parties propose to settle the PAGA claim for a total of $7,500, of which 

$1,875 would be distributed to the class members, and $5,625 would be distributed to 

the California Labor & Workforce Development Agency. They seek dismissal of the 

complaint in its entirety as follows: the sixth cause of action for PAGA violations 

would be dismissed with prejudice, and the remaining causes of action would be 

dismissed with prejudice as to the named Plaintiff only, and without prejudice as to 

the putative class. The parties also request the Court to incorporate by reference the 

terms of the Settlement Agreement and Release of PAGA Claims ("Agreement"). 

The release provisions of the Agreement do not necessarily support the parties' 

representation that, based on the dismissal without prejudice, the putative class 

members would remain free to assert their individual claims under California Labor 

Code. (See Revised Joint Motion at 1&4.) The Agreement defines Released Claims:

any and all claims, whether known or unknown, to recover 

wages, damages, penalties, attorney fees, litigation costs, 

restitution, or equitable relief, which Plaintiff and/or the 

PAGA Settlement Members had, or may claim to have, 

against Released Parties, arising out of the facts, 

circumstances, and primary rights of the PAGA claim in 

the Action.

Case 3:16-cv-00507-JLB Document 35 Filed 06/12/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 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

3 Case No. 3:16-cv-00507-L-JLB

 

(Agreement ¶ I.L. (emphasis added).) The definition is ambiguous regarding the 

scope of the release. Although it clearly applies to the putative class members,1it is 

unclear whether it applies to their non-PAGA Labor Code claims arising out of the 

same facts and circumstances as the PAGA claim. 

This ambiguity is not entirely resolved by the separate substantive release 

provision, which states:

... PAGA Settlement Members ... fully release and forever 

discharge the Released Parties from any and all Released 

Claims during the PAGA Period. As a result of this 

release, the PAGA Settlement Members will be unable to 

bring a claim under, or recover in any other claim brought 

under [PAGA] for any violations of the Released Claims 

that took place during the PAGA Period.

(Agreement ¶VI.A.) 

The release provisions do not leave the putative class members with a clear path 

to asserting their non-PAGA claims. They give them a basis for an argument, which 

they may win or lose, that the parties did not intend to release the class members' nonPAGA claims.

The parties seek approval of the settlement pursuant to California Labor Code 

Section 2699.3(b)(4) "to ensure that the settlement provisions are at least as effective 

as the protections or remedies provided by state and federal law or regulation for the 

alleged violation." The release provisions preclude a finding that the settlement 

complies with section 2699.3(b)(4). The Revised Joint Motion is therefore DENIED.

 

1 The term "PAGA Settlement Members" is defined as "all persons employed in 

California by Central Freight Lines, Inc. as Pick Up and Delivery Drivers during the 

PAGA Period. (Agreement ¶ I.H.; cf. Second Am. Compl. at 9 (describing putative 

class).) 

Case 3:16-cv-00507-JLB Document 35 Filed 06/12/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 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

4 Case No. 3:16-cv-00507-L-JLB

 

The Revised Joint Motion is DENIED on the alternative ground that it does not 

comply with this Court's Standing Orders for Civil Cases relating to Settlement and 

Dismissal.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 12, 2017

Case 3:16-cv-00507-JLB Document 35 Filed 06/12/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4