Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-06291/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-06291-3/pdf.json

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

---

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

LEONA MARINO,

Plaintiff,

v.

CACAFE, INC., ET AL.,

Defendants.

Case No. 16-cv-6291 YGR 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART MOTION OF 

PLAINTIFF LEONA MARINO FOR 

CORRECTIVE ACTION 

Re: Dkt. No. 39

Plaintiff Leona Marino brings this Motion for Corrective Action (Dkt. No. 39) seeking 

remedies for the conduct of defendants CACafe, Inc., Jane Zheng, and Ted Chao (collectively, 

“CACafe Defendants”) in their communications with putative class and collective action members 

in connection with this wage and hour litigation. The other defendants are not implicated. Having 

carefully considered the papers and evidence submitted, and for the reasons set forth below, the 

motion is GRANTED IN PART as follows: (1) the request for a corrective notice to the putative class 

members is GRANTED; (2) the request to invalidate the releases obtained by CACafe is GRANTED

and the releases are hereby invalidated; and (3) the request to enjoin communications by CACafe 

is GRANTED IN PART, under the limitations as stated herein. 

The Court finds it appropriate to send a corrective notice and to invalidate the releases 

obtained in a misleading manner by Zheng, in order to protect putative class members and 

safeguard the integrity of the process. The Court also finds it appropriate to order CACafe

Defendants to cease communications with putative class members to obtain releases of the claims 

at issue in this litigation until this Court has ruled on the motion for conditional certification of the 

collective action. However, plaintiff’s request to toll the statute of limitations during the period of 

the pendency of the case until a ruling on conditional certification is DENIED WITHOUT 

Case 4:16-cv-06291-YGR Document 68 Filed 04/28/17 Page 1 of 9
2

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

PREJUDICE to raising the merits of the issue in connection with class certification or other later 

proceedings in this action. 

I. SUMMARY OF RELEVANT FACTS

On October 31, 2016, plaintiff Marino filed the initial class action complaint alleging 

causes of action pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and California state wage and hour laws. 

Defendants CACafe, Zheng, and Chao were served by certified mail with the required notice of 

penalty claims by certified mail on November 1, 2016, and with the complaint on November 8, 

2016. On November 10, 2016, defendant Zheng contacted plaintiff's counsel to ask for a copy of 

the penalty notice to be emailed to her, which plaintiff’s counsel emailed along with a copy of the 

complaint that same day. 

On November 25, 2016, defendant Zheng emailed members of the putative class. In her 

email she stated that the “company is restructuring its processes” and that “to ensure there is no 

outstanding issue based on your contractual relationships with [the] Company, we are offering an 

incentive of $500.00 for your cooperation” which she would immediately wire to the recipient’s 

bank account upon signing and returning the attached release of claims. (Nisewander Decl. Exh. 

A, Dkt No. 39-2; Tracy Decl. Exh. A, Dkt. No. 39-3.) The attachment included a general release 

of all claims and a waiver of rights under California Civil Code section 1542. The email did not 

state that a lawsuit had been filed concerning the putative class members’ contractual relationship 

with the company, nor did it identify the counsel who had brought the suit or the nature of the 

claims at issue. 

II. DISCUSSION 

Before a class is certified in a class action, counsel for both plaintiffs and defendants may 

communicate with the putative class, ex parte, about the lawsuit. Gulf Oil Co. v. Bernard, 452 

U.S. 89, 100 (1981). “Because of the potential for abuse, a district court has both the duty and the 

broad authority to exercise control over a class action and to enter appropriate orders governing 

the conduct of counsel and parties.” Id. at 100. “The prophylactic power accorded to the court 

presiding over a putative class action under Rule 23(d) is broad; the purpose of Rule 23(d)'s 

conferral of authority is not only to protect class members in particular but to safeguard generally 

the administering of justice and the integrity of the class certification process.” Retiree Support 

Case 4:16-cv-06291-YGR Document 68 Filed 04/28/17 Page 2 of 9
3

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

Grp. of Contra Costa Cty. v. Contra Costa Cty., No. 12-CV-00944-JST, 2016 WL 4080294, at *5 

(N.D. Cal. July 29, 2016) (citing O'Connor v. Uber Technologies, Inc., No. C-13-3826 EMC, 

2014 WL 1760314, at *3 (N.D. Cal. May 2, 2014)). “Courts applying the Gulf Oil standard have 

found that ex parte communications soliciting opt-outs, or even simply discouraging participation 

in a case, undermine the purposes of Rule 23 and require curative action by the court.” Guifu Li v. 

A Perfect Day Franchise, Inc., 270 F.R.D. 509, 517 (N.D. Cal. 2010). 

In the context of class action litigation, whether pre- or post-certification, unsupervised 

communications between an employer and its workers present an acute risk of coercion and abuse. 

See Guifu Li, 270 FRD at 517; Wang v. Chinese Daily News, Inc., 236 F.R.D. 485, 490 

(C.D.Cal.2006). Courts applying the Gulf Oil standard have found that an employer’s 

communications soliciting opt-outs, or even simply discouraging participation in a case, 

undermine the purposes of Rule 23 and require curative action by the court.” Guifu Li, 270 F.R.D. 

at 517 (citing cases). 

Here, the Court finds that a curative notice to the putative class members is required. 

Defendant Zheng’s communications with the putative class members concealed material 

information and were misleading. While the evidence does not indicate the high degree of 

coercion present in other cases, the fact remains that defendant Zheng communicated with putative 

class members after the lawsuit was filed, but before they had received any formal notice and 

before plaintiff’s counsel had been given an opportunity to communicate with them. The speed 

with which the emailed release requests were distributed after Zheng was served with the lawsuit; 

coupled with defendants’ continued resistance to providing putative class member contact 

information,1suggest that defendants sought to ensure that putative class members were not given 

 

1

 In or around February 13, 2017, nearly a month before the instant motion was filed,

plaintiff requested that defendant provide a list of putative class members and their contact 

information, so that plaintiff’s counsel could communicate with the putative class members. On 

March 16, 2017, after the parties reached an impasse in their discussions on the issue, this Court 

ordered the parties to meet and confer and submit a stipulated protective order within seven days, 

and for CACafe to produce the class list to plaintiff’s counsel. Plaintiff’s reply brief filed March 

31, 2017, indicated that, despite the Court’s order and its approval of the protective order, CACafe 

still had not produced the class list. The Court understands that the class list was produced 

sometime thereafter.

Case 4:16-cv-06291-YGR Document 68 Filed 04/28/17 Page 3 of 9
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

full information before they signed the releases. The communications did not inform putative 

class members that there was a lawsuit pending that concerned their legal rights, the nature of the 

claims, plaintiff’s counsel’s contact information, the status of the case, or any other information 

that might have permitted them to allow them to make an informed decision about the waiver of 

their rights. (Zheng Decl. ¶ 26, Dkt. No. 54-2.) 

Evidence that putative class members may have learned about the lawsuit in other ways 

does not mitigate the misleading nature of this communication. Zheng’s representation that nearly 

every member of the putative class signed the release likewise suggests a degree of coercion. Cf. 

Guifu Li, 270 F.R.D. at 518 (substantial number of current workers submitting opt-outs solicited 

by defendants prior to certification indicated coercion). The contention that Zheng’s 

communication with putative class members did not “misstate any facts about the case” is 

disingenuous, since that communication omitted any information about the pending lawsuit. 

Because the Court finds the releases here were obtained by deceptive omissions of material 

information, the Court also finds that the releases are invalid. See Camp v. Alexander, 300 F.R.D. 

617, 626 (N.D. Cal. 2014) (invalidating opt-outs and requiring corrective notice where former 

employer sent a letter describing the lawsuit and its potential negative effect on business if 

employees participated); Cty. of Santa Clara v. Astra USA, Inc., No. C 05-03740 WHA, 2010 WL 

2724512, at *6 (N.D. Cal. July 8, 2010) (invalidating settlement agreements and releases obtained 

prior to class certification where letters did not provide sufficient detail about case and claims at 

issue); Wang v. Chinese Daily News, 236 F.R.D. 485 (C.D.Cal.2006) (rev'd on other grounds by 

Wang v. Chinese Daily News, 709 F.3d 829 (9th Cir.2012) (invaliding opt-out forms obtained 

from 75-80% of employees during workplace meetings the court deemed coercive); Guifu Li., 270 

F.R.D. at 518 (opt-outs secured at mandatory meetings with employees were coercive and 

invalid). 

The Court therefore finds that CACafe’s ex parte communications with putative class 

members were misleading communications under the standards set forth in Gulf Oil and its 

progeny. To safeguard the putative class members, and the integrity of the class certification 

process, the Court ORDERS as follows: 

Case 4:16-cv-06291-YGR Document 68 Filed 04/28/17 Page 4 of 9
5

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

(1) All releases CACafe Defendants obtained from putative class members in this action 

from October 31, 2016 to the present are hereby invalidated. However, the Court prohibits 

CACafe from requesting any reimbursement of payments made. The Court will determine at a 

later date whether CACafe would be entitled to any offset. 

(2) By no later than May 7, 2017, plaintiff’s counsel shall effect the mailing of the curative 

notice set forth in Exhibit A hereto; and shall file a certification that the mailing was completed. 

The Court understands that plaintiff’s counsel have been provided with the names and contact 

information for all putative class members. Mailing shall be at the expense of CACafe, which 

shall reimburse plaintiff’s counsel for the costs of mailing within 14 days of its completion. 

(3) Pursuant to the Court’s authority to manage these proceedings, and based upon the 

showing of misconduct, the Court ORDERS that defendants CACafe, Inc., Jane Zheng, and Ted 

Chao are prohibited from engaging in any ex parte communications with putative class members 

regarding any of the subjects of this litigation, or any release of claims herein, unless such 

communication is made through their counsel of record. This prohibition continues from the date 

of this Order until the Court has ruled on any motion by plaintiff for conditional certification of an 

FLSA collective action, or until further order of the Court. 

Having invalidated the releases, the Court does not reach plaintiff’s arguments regarding 

the legality of any provision therein. Likewise, the Court denies plaintiff’s request that the claims 

of putative class members be tolled for the period between the filing of the lawsuit and the Court’s 

decision certification of a class or collective action without prejudice to it being raised in the 

context of such motion. 

This terminates Docket No. 39.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

______________________________________

YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

Case 4:16-cv-06291-YGR Document 68 Filed 04/28/17 Page 5 of 9
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

EXHIBIT A

APPROVED CURATIVE NOTICE TO BE MAILED TO PUTATIVE CLASS MEMBERS

Case 4:16-cv-06291-YGR Document 68 Filed 04/28/17 Page 6 of 9
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

LEONA MARINO,

Plaintiff,

v.

CACAFE, INC., ET AL.,

Defendants.

Case No. 16-cv-6291 YGR 

CORRECTIVE NOTICE TO POTENTIAL

CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION 

MEMBERS

Hon. Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers

TO: ALL IN-STORE DEMONSTRATORS WHO SIGNED RELEASES OF CLAIMS OR 

SEVERANCE AGREEMENTS WITH CACAFE, INC., JANE ZHENG, OR TED CHAO:

You are receiving this notice, because you may have received emails from the owners or 

managers of CACafe, Inc. (CACafe) requesting that you sign a release agreement for any potential 

legal claims in exchange for a payment (approximately $500). These emails and release 

agreements were not reviewed or authorized by the Court. The Court has determined that the

emails and release agreements were misleading and improper. This notice is being sent to you to 

inform you that the Court has ordered that the releases are invalid, and to explain your right to 

choose whether you wish to participate in the lawsuit that has been filed. The Court is not

requiring that you return any monies paid to you.

I. Background About the Lawsuit 

This lawsuit was filed on October 31, 2016. Leona Marino is the representative plaintiff 

and was an in-store demonstrator for CACafe, Inc. in 2016. CACafe, Inc., Jane Zheng, Ted Chao, 

Costco Wholesale Corporation, and Club Demonstration Services, Inc. are the defendants. 

The lawsuit claims that in-store demonstrators who worked for CACafe, Inc. are entitled to 

the protection federal and California employee wage laws, including payment of minimum wages 

and overtime, meal and rest breaks, reimbursement of business expenses (including 

reimbursement of cellphone expenses), and similar rights. The lawsuit seeks relief on behalf of all 

people, who were, are, or will be employed by CACafe as in-store demonstrators, and other 

positions with similar job duties, since October 2012. 

Depending upon future rulings of the Court, you may be asked to complete a consent form, 

Case 4:16-cv-06291-YGR Document 68 Filed 04/28/17 Page 7 of 9
2

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

or receive other notice regarding whether you wish to participate in this lawsuit. If the Plaintiff 

wins the lawsuit and you are included in the class, you may be awarded payment for minimum and 

overtime wages for the hours you worked for CACafe, reimbursement of certain business 

expenses, interest, penalties and other relief, if ordered by the Court. If Plaintiff does not win the 

lawsuit, you will receive nothing. 

The Court has not decided the merits of any of the underlying claims.

II. The Court Has Ruled That the Release Agreement You Signed Is Invalid and

Will Not be Enforced Against You

In November 2016, CACafe, Inc., Jane Zheng, and/or Ted Chao contacted in-store 

demonstrators to ask them to sign an agreement to release all their potential claims against 

CACafe, Inc. in exchange for a payment of $500.00. CACafe did not disclose the existence of the 

pending lawsuit, the nature of the lawsuit, the identities of plaintiff’s counsel, and similar related 

information. Only CACafe, Inc., Jane Zheng, and Ted Chao are responsible for requesting the 

release agreements.

The Court has ordered that all of these release agreements signed on or after October 31, 

2016, are invalid and not enforceable. Because the release agreement is invalid, you may 

participate in the pending class and collective action without any negative consequences from 

signing the release agreement, assuming you are otherwise eligible to participate in the lawsuit. 

No person who received a payment in return for signing a release agreement will be 

required to return the payment. Any payment you received from CACafe in connection with 

signing the release agreement may be subtracted from any future payments you may be awarded, 

if ordered by the Court. Even if no payments are awarded by the Court in the future, you will not 

be required to return any payment you previously received from CACafe for signing the release 

agreement. 

III. Retaliation for Participating in this Lawsuit is Prohibited by Law

It is a violation of federal and California law for any of the defendants, and any of their

agents or managers, to discharge you, or in any manner discriminate or retaliate against you, for

taking part in this case. You cannot legally be fired, sued, demoted, “blackballed” in the industry, 

or otherwise discriminated against for participating in this suit. 

Case 4:16-cv-06291-YGR Document 68 Filed 04/28/17 Page 8 of 9
3

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

If you believe that you have experienced retaliation in any way as a result of your 

participation in this lawsuit, you may file an action independently or contact plaintiff’s counsel 

(see contact information below).

IV. The Court is Neutral in this Matter and No Legal Rulings on the Claims in the

Lawsuit Have Been Made Yet

The Court takes no position in this case, and has not issued any determinations regarding 

the merits of the lawsuit.

VII. Some Final Comments Regarding This Corrective Notice

You are being sent this Corrective Notice to allow you to make an informed choice as to 

whether to you wish to participate in this lawsuit. This decision is yours alone.

The Court has ordered that the defendants cannot affirmatively contact you with respect to 

this decision. However, this order does not prohibit your own actions.

VIII. Questions?

If you have any questions with respect to this action or about this Notice, you may direct 

such questions to Plaintiff’s Counsel:

Bryan Schwartz Law

Attn: Eduard Meleshinsky

1330 Broadway, Suite 1630

Oakland, CA 94612

Telephone: (510) 444-9300

Email: eduard@bryanschwartzlaw.com

If you choose, you may also contact counsel for any of the defendants:

For CACafe:

W. Dan Lee, M.E.T.A.L. Law 

Group LLP, 5757 Wilshire 

Boulevard, Penthouse 3

Los Angeles, CA 90036

Telephone: 323-289-2260

dlee@metallawgroup.com

For Costco: 

Catherine M. Dacre,

Seyfarth Shaw LLP,

560 Mission St., Suite 3100

San Francisco, CA 94105 

Telephone 415-397-2823 

cdacre@seyfarth.com

For Club Demonstration Services:

Mustafa El-Farra,

Littler Mendelson, P.C.,

2050 Main Street, Suite 900, 

Irvine, CA 92614 

Telephone: 949-705-3039 

melfarra@littler.com

YOU SHOULD NOT CONTACT THE COURT WITH QUESTIONS. THIS NOTICE AND 

ITS CONTENT HAVE BEEN APPROVED BY JUDGE YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS,

U.S. DISTRICT COURT, NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA.

______________________________

 Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers

 United States District Judge 

Case 4:16-cv-06291-YGR Document 68 Filed 04/28/17 Page 9 of 9