Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-00884/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-00884-8/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Safety-Kleen Systems, Inc.
Defendant
Steven Wamboldt
Plaintiff

Document Text:

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEVEN WAMBOLDT,

Plaintiff, No. C 07-0884 PJH

v. ORDER RE CLASS NOTICE AND

STRIKING STATEMENT OF CLAIM

SAFETY-KLEEN SYSTEMS, INC.,

Defendant.

_______________________________/

Before the court are the parties’ briefs setting forth their dispute with regard to the

contents and proposed manner of distributing the class notice. To assist the court’s

understanding of the dispute, the court ordered plaintiff to file a more definite statement

clarifying the “overtime claim” alleged in the first amended complaint (“FAC”), because of

the ambiguity that appeared to be raised by certain language in the FAC. The court

contemplated the kind of statement that would be prepared following a successful motion

for a more definite statement under FRCP 12(e); hence no provision was made for the filing

of an opposition by defendant. Instead, plaintiff has submitted essentially a brief, replete

with argument and citations supporting his position that the FAC is not ambiguous and that

a broad reading of the overtime claim is warranted. The court finds the brief improper and

orders it STRICKEN. The court herein relies solely on the FAC and the requested briefs in

resolving the dispute about the class notice. 

The court has reviewed the FAC and determined that while there is a reference to

California Labor Code section 510's requirement that overtime compensation be paid at a

rate of not less than one and one-half times the regular rate of pay, there is also a

reference to defendant’s failure to pay overtime compensation by failing to provide overtime

Case 4:07-cv-00884-PJH Document 95 Filed 05/12/08 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

pay, premium pay, and overtime premiums, suggesting some distinction between these

types of pay. More significantly, however, the FAC does not appear to contain an explicit

allegation that all that is sought by plaintiff is compensation for one and one-half times his

regular rate of pay. Thus the court does not read the FAC as prohibiting plaintiff and the

class from proceeding under their more generic definition of overtime. By the same token,

the class definition does not contain the language suggested by plaintiff, “whether that

amount is computed at the employer’s hourly rate of pay or at a premium rate of pay.” The

court therefore approves class notice that contains the following language:

The complaint alleges that defendant failed to compensate

plaintiff and other customer service representatives in

compliance with various provisions of California Labor Code by

failing to compensate employees for all hours worked in excess

of eight hours in one day and/or in excess of forty hours in a

work week.

Further, although this issue was not identified in conjunction with the class certification

motion, the court fully intended to certify the class defined in the FAC, and is not amenable

to revisiting class certification on this issue. Whether defendant’s failure to compensate

employees for those hours worked at a regular rate of pay amounts to a violation of the

Labor Code, is not a pleading issue, and will instead be resolved in the final dispositive

motion or at trial. 

With regard to the inclusion of defense counsel’s name and contact information in

the class notice, defendant has provided no authority for its request, nor has it persuaded

the court that there is a good reason for doing so. 

With regard to the manner of distribution, the court already indicated that the five

methods suggested by plaintiff were excessive. The court agrees with defendant that use

of an administrator is preferable. As direct mailing is the most acceptable way of providing

notice, there is no need to provide the notice additionally in a pay envelope for current

employees and to post it at the work place. With regard to former employees, mailing to

the last known address is the obvious first step. It is this court’s experience that

experienced class administrators have several tools available to them for locating class

Case 4:07-cv-00884-PJH Document 95 Filed 05/12/08 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

members whose notices are returned. Given the expense of publication, other methods

should be attempted first.

The parties shall further meet and confer and prepare a final notice, to be submitted

for the court’s approval as soon as possible.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 12, 2008

______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:07-cv-00884-PJH Document 95 Filed 05/12/08 Page 3 of 3