Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01314/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01314-49/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 29:206 Collect Unpaid Wages

---

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 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN RE TACO BELL WAGE AND HOUR CASE NO. CV F 07-1314 LJO DLB

 ORDER TO ADOPT FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS ON CLASS

CERTIFICATION

(Doc. 341.)

 /

INTRODUCTION

U.S.Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck issued November 27, 2012 findings and recommendations

(“f and r’s”) to certify the following class

Meal Break Subclass:

All persons who work or worked as a non-exempt, hourly-paid employee at a

corporate-owned Taco Bell restaurant in California from September 7, 2003, until the

resolution of this lawsuit who worked for a period of time in excess of six hours and who

worked for periods longer than five hours without a meal period of not less than thirty

minutes as reflected in Defendants’ employees’ time records.

The parties filed objections to the f and r’s. Defendants Taco Bell Corp. and Taco Bell of

America, Inc. (collectively “defendants”) object that:

1. The late meal break class was not properly pled in plaintiffs’ operative complaint;

2. Members of the late meal class are not ascertainable;

3. Plaintiffs fail to satisfy commonality requirements;

4. Litigating late meal period claims as a class is neither manageable nor superior;

5. The named plaintiffs fail to satisfy typicality requirements;

1

Case 1:07-cv-01314-SAB Document 344 Filed 01/02/13 Page 1 of 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

6. The proposed class has internal conflicts of interest;

7. Plaintiffs’ counsel is inadequate; and

8. The late meal break class is overly inclusive.

Plaintiffs object that the f and r’s did not certify the unpaid meal break premium, on-duty meal

period agreement, and rest break classes. Plaintiffs fault the f and r’s analysis of these proposed classes. 

This Court carefully considered the parties’ objections and carefullyreviewed de novo the record

and f and r’s. This Court finds that the f and r’s adequately address concerns of defendants, who appear

to seek unrealistic perfection with the proposed late meal break class. Likewise, this Court finds that

the f and r’s correctly analyzed the proposed classes to result in recommendation of only the late break

class.

 CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court conducted a de novo review of this case. After

carefully evaluating the record, this Court finds the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations

are supported by the record and proper analysis.

Accordingly, this Court:

1. ADOPTS in full the magistrate judge’s November 27, 2012 findings and

recommendations and in particular the recommendation to certify the following class:

Meal Break Subclass:

All persons who work or worked as a non-exempt, hourly-paid employee at a

corporate-owned Taco Bell restaurant in California from September 7, 2003, until the

resolution of this lawsuit who worked for a period of time in excess of six hours and who

worked for periods longer than five hours without a meal period of not less than thirty

minutes as reflected in Defendants’ employees’ time records.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 2, 2013 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 66h44d

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2

Case 1:07-cv-01314-SAB Document 344 Filed 01/02/13 Page 2 of 2