Brown v. Ralphs Grocery Co., B278911

Decision Date31 October 2018
Docket NumberB278911
Citation28 Cal.App.5th 824,239 Cal.Rptr.3d 519
Parties Terri BROWN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. RALPHS GROCERY COMPANY et al., Defendants and Respondents.
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Capstone Law, Glenn A. Danas, Melissa Grant, Liana Carter, Los Angeles and Arnab Banerjee, for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Reed Smith, Linda S. Husar, San Diego, Mara D. Curtis and Kasey J. Curtis, Los Angeles, for Defendants and Respondents.

SEIGLE, J.*

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Terri Brown brought a representative action against her employer, Ralphs Grocery Company (Ralphs), and its parent company, The Kroger Co. (collectively defendants), under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA; Lab. Code, § 2698, et seq. ), alleging wage and hour violations. In 2009, plaintiff filed with the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA) a notice of alleged Labor Code violations, as required under Labor Code section 2699.3, subdivision (a) as a condition of filing a PAGA action, and filed her complaint in this action alleging PAGA claims. Thereafter, plaintiff filed a second amended complaint alleging new violations of different Labor Code provisions not specified in her 2009 notice.

Defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings arguing the 2009 notice was deficient, which the trial court granted with leave to amend the notice and the complaint. In March 2016, plaintiff amended her notice and filed a third amended complaint.

Defendants demurred to the third amended complaint, which was sustained by the trial court. The trial court held that the PAGA claims were barred because the 2009 notice was deficient and the 2016 notice and third amended complaint were filed more than five years after the expiration of the statute of limitations. The trial court rejected plaintiff's contention that equitable tolling saved the PAGA claims.

We conclude part of plaintiff's 2009 notice was adequate and satisfied the PAGA notice requirements under Labor Code section 2699.3, subdivision (a), and part was not and did not. We also conclude plaintiff's later-added PAGA claims for violations of Labor Code provisions not alleged in the 2009 notice did not timely comply with section 2699.3's notice requirements and are time-barred. Furthermore, the deficient claims and later-added claims are not saved by equitable tolling, the relation back doctrine, judicial estoppel, or waiver, except to the extent the later-added claims may relate back to the PAGA claim adequately and timely noticed in 2009. We reverse the judgment and remand with directions.

II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff was employed by Ralphs as an hourly, nonexempt security guard at two distribution centers from October 2005 to December 2009. She worked eight hours or more a day and 40 hours or more per week.

On October 12, 2009, she sent two two-page letters to the LWDA and defendants alleging violations of Labor Code 1

sections 204, 226, subdivision (a), 226.7, and 512 (2009 Notice). The 2009 Notice identified defendants as her employer, defendants' addresses, and plaintiff's job as an hourly-paid security guard in Los Angeles County. The 2009 Notice alleged defendants had violated sections 226.7 and 512 because "[plaintiff] and other aggrieved employees did not take all meal and rest periods and were not properly compensated for missed meal and rest periods." The 2009 Notice alleged defendants had violated section 204 because they "failed to pay [plaintiff] and other aggrieved employees all wages due to them within any time period specified by California Labor Code section 204." And it alleged defendants had violated section 226, subdivision (a) by not providing "[plaintiff] and other aggrieved employees with proper itemized wage statements" because, among other things, the wage statements failed "to include the name and address of the legal entity that is the employer."

Two days later on October 14, 2009, plaintiff filed a class action and PAGA representative action against defendants. The complaint alleged defendants violated sections 226.7 and 512 by requiring plaintiff to work through meal and rest periods without compensation, violated section 204 by failing to pay plaintiff the full wages due within the required time period, and violated section 226, subdivision (a) by failing to provide complete and accurate wage statements, including by not listing the legal name and address of the employer. In addition, plaintiff advanced a Business and Professions Code section 17200 cause of action.

On November 30, 2009, plaintiff filed a first amended complaint alleging the same causes of action and adding an allegation that she had satisfied the administrative prerequisites under section 2699.3, subdivision (a) by sending the 2009 Notice. She alleged that more than 33 days had passed since she sent the 2009 Notice and the LWDA had not provided any response. On December 8, 2009, the LWDA advised plaintiff and defendants that it had received the 2009 Notice and did not intend to investigate the allegations.

On approximately December 11, 2009, plaintiff's employment with defendants was terminated.

Rather than answer or demur, on January 6, 2010, Ralphs filed a petition to compel arbitration. The trial court concluded the class action and PAGA waivers were substantively unconscionable and denied the petition. On July 12, 2011, we reversed the trial court's ruling invalidating the class action waiver because plaintiff's opposition to the petition had not made the necessary factual showing under the test in Gentry v. Superior Court (2007) 42 Cal.4th 443, 446, 64 Cal.Rptr.3d 773, 165 P.3d 556. ( Brown v. Ralphs Grocery Co. (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 489, 497, 128 Cal.Rptr.3d 854.) But we affirmed the ruling that the PAGA waiver was substantively unconscionable and held PAGA was not preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act. ( 197 Cal.App.4th at pp. 500-503, 128 Cal.Rptr.3d 854.) We reversed and remanded for a determination whether the PAGA waiver provision could be severed from the arbitration agreement. ( Id. at p. 504, 128 Cal.Rptr.3d 854.) Defendants' petition for review by our Supreme Court was denied on October 19, 2011. ( Id. at p. 510, 128 Cal.Rptr.3d 854.) Defendants' petition for certiorari to the United States Supreme Court was denied on April 16, 2012. ( Ralphs Grocery Co. v. Brown (2012) 566 U.S. 937, 132 S.Ct. 1910, 182 L.Ed.2d 771.)

On May 2, 2012, the trial court severed the PAGA waiver provision from the arbitration agreement, granted Ralphs's request to arbitrate the non-PAGA claims on an individual basis, and stayed the PAGA claims until completion of the arbitration. Shortly thereafter, plaintiff decided not to pursue her individual claims in arbitration and instead to amend her complaint to drop her individual claims and proceed only on her PAGA claims.

On September 21, 2012, plaintiff moved for leave to file her second amended complaint. The proposed second amended complaint no longer alleged class and individual causes of action. It included the PAGA claims for violations of sections 204, 226, subdivision (a), 226.7, and 512 from the first amended complaint, and it added new PAGA claims. The new claims alleged violations of sections 201, 202, and 203 by not paying plaintiff and other aggrieved employees within the statutory time period after terminating their employment, and violations of section 1198 by failing to provide meal and rest periods, timely paid wages, and accurate employment records. The proposed second amended complaint also sought civil penalties under section 558 for the Labor Code violations.

Defendants filed an opposition to plaintiff's motion on procedural grounds. They argued the proper course was to allow plaintiff to dismiss the non-PAGA causes of action from the first amended complaint and lift the stay on the PAGA claims. Defendants did not challenge the substance of the proposed second amended complaint and did not argue that the PAGA claims were based on inadequate notice or time-barred.

On October 16, 2012, the trial court granted plaintiff's motion for leave to file the second amended complaint "on the grounds that Defendants essentially do not oppose this motion and will not suffer any prejudice by the proposed amendments."

Defendants were ordered to file their answer by November 15, 2012.

Defendants elected instead to renew their petition to compel arbitration pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1008, subdivision (b) based on new decisions from various California and federal courts. The trial court denied the motion, and we dismissed defendants' appeal because an order denying a renewed motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 1008, subdivision (b) is not appealable. ( Brown v. Ralphs Grocery Co. (Mar. 6, 2014, B247297) 2014 WL 880125 [nonpub. opn.].)

On January 20, 2016, defendants filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings challenging the second amended complaint. For the first time, defendants argued that the 2009 Notice was inadequate. Specifically, defendants asserted: (1) the 2009 Notice did not mention violations of sections 201, 202, 203, 558, and 1198, which were alleged in the second amended complaint but not the earlier complaints, and (2) the 2009 Notice did not sufficiently allege the facts and theories supporting the alleged violations of sections 204, 226, subdivision (a), 226.7, and 512. Plaintiff countered that the 2009 Notice was sufficient, and if it was not, she should be granted leave to amend because equitable tolling and the relation back doctrine saved her claims from the statute of limitations.

On March 11, 2016, the trial court granted defendants' motion with leave to amend. The trial court held that the 2009 Notice was inadequate because it did not refer to sections 201, 202, 558, or 1198 (the trial court did not mention section 203), and the second amended complaint introduced new theories of liability such as the failure to pay wages at discharge. At the hearing, the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
58 cases
  • Paredes v. Credit Consulting Servs., Inc.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • August 8, 2022
    ...supra , 5 Cal.App.5th at pp. 87–88, 91, fn. 12, 209 Cal.Rptr.3d 442.)Credit Consulting also cites Brown v. Ralphs Grocery Co. (2018) 28 Cal.App.5th 824, 841, 239 Cal.Rptr.3d 519, as support for the proposition that application of the tolling doctrine is improper. That case, however, involve......
  • Senne v. Kan. City Royals Baseball Corp.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of California
    • March 10, 2022
    ...that related to the alleged Labor Code violations." Id. (citing Cal. Lab. Code § 2699.3(a)(1)(A) ; Brown v. Ralphs Grocery Co. , 28 Cal. App. 5th 824, 837-38, 239 Cal.Rptr.3d 519 (2018) ; Mitchell v. Corelogic, Inc. , No. SA CV 17-2274-DOC (DFMx), 2019 WL 7172978, at *7 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 20, ......
  • Senne v. Kansas City Royals Baseball Corp.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of California
    • March 10, 2022
    ...that related to the alleged Labor Code violations.” Id. (citing Cal. Lab. Code § 2699.3(a)(1)(A); Brown v. Ralphs Grocery Co., 28 Cal.App. 5th 824, 837-38 (2018); Mitchell v. Corelogic, Inc., No. SA CV 17-2274-DOC (DFMx), 2019 WL 7172978, at *7 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 20, 2019); 174 Alcantar v. Hob......
  • Howitson v. Evans Hotels, LLC
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • July 21, 2022
    ...of the allegations an aggrieved employee is making and any basis for those allegations"]; see also Brown v. Ralphs Grocery Co. (2018) 28 Cal.App.5th 824, 837, 239 Cal.Rptr.3d 519 [the PAGA notice must "allow the LWDA ‘to intelligently assess the seriousness of the alleged violations’ or giv......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 firm's commentaries
2 books & journal articles
  • Alternative methods of proof
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Objections
    • March 29, 2023
    ...or accepted by the court, and silence or lack of objection does not result in judicial estoppel. Brown v. Ralphs Grocery Co. (2018) 28 Cal. App. 5th 824, 842, 239 Cal. Rptr. 3d 519. For example, simply pleading a right to attorney’s fees does not estop a party from challenging the opposing ......
  • Table of cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Objections
    • March 29, 2023
    ...B-8 Brown v. Goldstein (2019) 34 Cal. App. 5th 418, 246 Cal. Rptr. 3d 161, §15:10 Brown v. Ralphs Grocery Co . (2018) 28 Cal. App. 5th 824, 239 Cal. Rptr. 3d 519, §18:40 Brown v. Chiang (2011) 198 Cal. App. 4th 1203, 132 Cal. Rptr. 3d 48, §18:30 Brown v. Colm (1974) 11 Cal. 3d 639, 114 Cal.......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT