Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00411/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00411-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DENNIS BICEK, individually, and on 

behalf of other members of the general 

public similarly situated, and on behalf 

of aggrieved employees pursuant to 

the Private Attorneys General Act,

Plaintiff,

v.

C&S WHOLESALE GROCERS, INC.,

a Vermont corporation; TRACY 

LOGISTICS, LLC, an unknown 

business entity; and DOES 1 through 

100, inclusive,

Defendants.

No. 2:13-cv-00411-MCE-KJN

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Through this action, Plaintiff Dennis Bicek (“Plaintiff”) seeks relief from 

Defendants C&S Wholesale Grocers, Inc. (“C&S”) and Tracy Logistics, LLC (“Tracy 

Logistics”) (collectively “Defendants”) for violations of California state law. On 

December 10, 2012, Plaintiff filed a Class Action Complaint in the Superior Court of 

California, County of Sacramento, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated. 

Plaintiff alleges violations of: (1) California Labor Code § 1194 for unpaid minimum and 

overtime wages; (2) the California Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act, Cal. Labor 

Code §§ 2698-2699.5; and (3) violations of California’s unfair competition law, Cal. Bus. 

Case 2:13-cv-00411-MCE-KJN Document 67 Filed 04/14/14 Page 1 of 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

2

& Prof. Code §§ 17200-17207. On February 28, 2013, Defendants removed the case to 

federal court pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d).

Presently before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Deny Class Certification. 

Mot., Mar. 6, 2014, ECF No. 64. Plaintiff filed a statement of non-opposition. Response, 

Mar. 17, 2014, ECF No. 65. For the reasons set forth below, Defendants’ Motion is 

GRANTED.1

BACKGROUND2

Plaintiff brings the present action on behalf of himself and other current and 

former warehouse supervisors at warehouses operated by Defendants within California. 

Plaintiff’s proposed class includes warehouse supervisors who worked for Defendants

from February 3, 2007, until such time as a final judgment in this case is entered. 

Defendants employed Plaintiff as a warehouse supervisor, which is an “exempt” salaried 

position, from approximately November 2007 to December 2011, in Sacramento County. 

Defendants hired Plaintiff, allegedly misclassified him as an “exempt” employee, and 

paid him on a salary basis, without any compensation for overtime hours worked, missed 

meal periods, or rest breaks. According to Plaintiff, Defendants engaged in a uniform 

policy and systematic scheme of wage abuse against their warehouse supervisors. This 

alleged scheme involved misclassifying warehouse supervisors as “exempt” for 

purposes of payment of overtime compensation, when in fact these employees were 

“non-exempt” under California law. 

Plaintiff and other class members allege they worked over eight hours per day, 

and/or more than forty hours per week during the course of their employment with 

Defendants. Furthermore, although Defendants knew or should have known that 

 1 Because oral argument was not of material assistance, the Court ordered this matter submitted 

on the briefs pursuant to Local Rule 230(g).

2 The following recital of facts is taken, sometimes verbatim, from Plaintiff’s Class Action 

Complaint. Pl.’s Compl. Attached to Defs.’ RJN, ECF No. 1-1.

Case 2:13-cv-00411-MCE-KJN Document 67 Filed 04/14/14 Page 2 of 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

3

Plaintiff and putative class members were entitled to receive certain wages as overtime 

compensation, Plaintiff and putative class members did not receive such wages. 

Similarly, according to Plaintiff, he and the other putative class members did not receive 

all rest and meal periods that they were entitled to receive; nor did they receive one 

additional hour of pay when a meal period was missed. Plaintiff also alleges that while 

Defendants knew or should have known that Plaintiff and putative class members were 

entitled to receive at least minimum wages as compensation, Plaintiff and putative class 

members did not receive at least minimum wages for all hours worked. 

Plaintiff and putative class members further claim they were entitled to timely 

payment of all wages during their employment and to timely payment of wages earned 

upon termination, but did not receive timely payment of these wages either during their 

employment or upon termination. Plaintiff and putative class members likewise did not 

receive complete and accurate wage statements from Defendants, although Defendants 

knew or should have known that Plaintiff and putative class members were entitled to 

these statements. Defendants also failed to keep complete and accurate payroll 

records. Finally, Defendants falsely represented to Plaintiff and putative class members 

that the wage denials were proper. Instead, these wage denials were improper and 

served the purpose of increasing Defendants’ profits.

ANALYSIS

Class actions are governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.3 A court may 

certify a class if a plaintiff demonstrates that all of the prerequisites of Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 23(a) have been met, and that at least one of the requirements of Rule 

23(b) have been met. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23; see also Valentino v. Carter-Wallace, Inc., 97 

F.3d 1227, 1234 (9th Cir. 1996). Before certifying a class, the trial court must conduct a

 3 All further references to “Rule” or “Rules” are to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure unless 

otherwise noted.

Case 2:13-cv-00411-MCE-KJN Document 67 Filed 04/14/14 Page 3 of 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

4

“rigorous analysis” to determine whether the party seeking certification has met the 

prerequisites of Rule 23. Id. at 1233. While the trial court has broad discretion to certify 

a class, its discretion must be exercised within the framework of Rule 23. Zinser v. 

Accufix Research Inst., Inc., 235 F.3d 1180, 1186 (9th Cir. 2001), amended, 273 F.3d 

1266 (9th Cir. 2001). 

Rule 23(a) states in relevant part that “[o]ne or more members of a class may sue 

or be sued as representative parties on behalf of all.” As a threshold matter, Rule 23(a) 

requires that to certify a class, the court must be satisfied that: 

(1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is 

impracticable (the “numerosity” requirement); (2) there are 

questions of law or fact common to the class (the 

“commonality” requirement); (3) the claims or defenses of 

representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of 

the class (the “typicality” requirement); and (4) the 

representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the 

interests of the class (the “adequacy of representation” 

requirement).

Collins v. Cargill Meat Solutions Corp., 274 F.R.D. 294, 300 (E.D. Cal. 2011) (quoting In 

re Itel Secs. Litig., 89 F.R.D. 104, 112 (N.D. Cal. 1981)); see also Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 

1019 (listing four requirements).

Rule 23(b), for its part, requires a plaintiff to establish one of the following: (1) that 

there is a risk of substantial prejudice from separate actions; (2) that declaratory or 

injunctive relief benefitting the class as a whole would be appropriate; or (3) that 

common questions of law or fact predominate and the class action is superior to other 

available methods of adjudication. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b).

The defendant may file a preemptive motion to deny class certification or to strike 

the class allegations from the complaint even if the plaintiff has not moved to certify the 

class. Vinole v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 571 F.3d 935, 939 (9th Cir. 2009). 

Even in cases where the defendant files the motion to deny class certification, the 

plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating that each of Rule 23(a)'s four requirements 

and at least one requirement of Rule 23(b) are met. Narouz v. Charter Comm'n, LLC, 

591 F.3d 1261, 1266 (9th Cir. 2010). 

Case 2:13-cv-00411-MCE-KJN Document 67 Filed 04/14/14 Page 4 of 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

5

Here, because Plaintiff filed a statement of non-opposition to Defendants’ Motion 

to Deny Class Certification, Plaintiff has failed to meet his burden to demonstrate that 

each of the requirements of Rule 23(a), and at least once of the requirements of Rule 

23(b), are met. Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion to Deny Class Certification is 

GRANTED.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons just stated, Defendants’ Motion to Deny Class Certification, ECF 

No. 64, is GRANTED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 11, 2014

Case 2:13-cv-00411-MCE-KJN Document 67 Filed 04/14/14 Page 5 of 5