Cabardo ex rel. Current v. Patacsil, 2:12-cv-01705-TLN-KJN.

CourtUnited States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Eastern District of California
Citation248 F.Supp.3d 1002
Docket NumberNo. 2:12-cv-01705-TLN-KJN.,2:12-cv-01705-TLN-KJN.
Parties Joseph CABARDO, Donnabel Suyat, Mactabe Bibat, Marissa Bibat, Alicia Bolling, Renato Manipon, Carlina Cabacongan, and John Dave Cabacongan, on behalf of all current and former employees and the State of California, Plaintiffs, v. Marilyn PATACSIL and Ernesto Patacsil, Defendants.
Decision Date31 March 2017

248 F.Supp.3d 1002

Joseph CABARDO, Donnabel Suyat, Mactabe Bibat, Marissa Bibat, Alicia Bolling, Renato Manipon, Carlina Cabacongan, and John Dave Cabacongan, on behalf of all current and former employees and the State of California, Plaintiffs,
v.
Marilyn PATACSIL and Ernesto Patacsil, Defendants.

No. 2:12-cv-01705-TLN-KJN.

United States District Court, E.D. California.

Signed March 31, 2017


Hector Rodriguez Martinez, Joseph Donald Sutton, Marco A. Palau, Stanley S. Mallison, Mallison & Martinez, Oakland, CA, for Plaintiffs.

Douglas Srulowitz, Law Offices of Douglas S. Srulowitz, Stockton, CA, Michael Bruce Levin, The Law Offices of Michael B. Levin, San Diego, CA, for Defendants.

ORDER

Troy L. Nunley, United States District Judge

This is a lawsuit asserting claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. §§ 201 et seq. , and several California wage-and-hour laws. The matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.1 (ECF No. 44.) Defendants Marilyn Patacsil ("Marilyn") and Ernesto Patacsil (collectively "Defendants") oppose the motion. (ECF No. 49.) For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiffs' motion is GRANTED in part.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs are former employees of Patacsil Care Homes, a group of residential care homes owned and operated by Defendants. Plaintiffs were "live-in" caregivers at the homes, which, as the name suggests, means they lived and worked onsite.

The gravamen of Plaintiffs' complaint is straightforward: they contend that Defendants misclassified them as exempt from minimum wage and overtime requirements under both federal and California law. (ECF No. 21 at ¶ 26–28.) Plaintiffs brought a suite of claims in this lawsuit—alleging that Defendants violated several federal and state wage-and-hour laws for conduct like not paying Plaintiffs minimum wage or overtime, not providing meal periods or rest periods, not providing accurate and itemized wage statements, and not maintaining time records showing when Plaintiffs began and ended work or meal periods. (ECF No. 21 at ¶ 27.)

The instant motion concerns only Plaintiffs' sixth and tenth claims. In their sixth claim, Plaintiffs contend that Defendants violated § 226 of the California Labor Code because Defendants did not provide Plaintiffs with wage statements accurately reflecting the number of hours Plaintiffs worked. (ECF No. 44–1 at 1:12–15.) In their tenth claim, Plaintiffs contend that Defendants' violation of § 226 is also a predicate that allows them to recover civil penalties pursuant to the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA"), CAL. LAB. CODE §§ 2698 et seq. (ECF No. 44–1 at 1:26–28.) Plaintiffs argue they are entitled to summary judgment on both claims.

248 F.Supp.3d 1006

The relevant facts are not in dispute. Prior to 2012, Defendants paid Plaintiffs a salary rather than an hourly wage. (Sutton Decl., Ex. 1 ("Patacsil Dep. 1"), ECF No. 44–4 at 55:13–15.) Consequently, Defendants did not provide Plaintiffs with wage statements that recounted the hours Plaintiffs worked in any given pay period. (Sutton Decl., Ex. 2 ("Patacsil Dep. 2"), ECF No. 44–5 at 28:24–29:1.) Marilyn conceded the point in her depositions:

Q: Okay. And so [the] wage statements that [Plaintiffs] got didn't contain any reference to hours worked?

A: No.

(Patacsil Dep. 1, ECF No. 44–4 at 55:16–18.)

Q: Okay. So the wage statements that you gave [Plaintiffs], did they record the hours?

A: No, it's because it's salary.

Q: So there was no recounting of hours on the wage statements?

A: No.

(Patacsil Dep. 2, ECF No. 44–5 at 28:24–29:4.) Most of the wage statements Plaintiffs received simply had no reference to hours worked. (ECF No. 44–2 at No. 5.) Others listed "86.67" hours regardless of the Plaintiff or pay period. (ECF No. 44–2 at No. 5.) Defendants do not contend that any of these were accurate. Instead, they attribute the "86.67" hour entries to a bank error. (ECF No. 49 at 6:9–10.)

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). The "threshold inquiry" is whether "there are any genuine factual issues that properly can be resolved only by a finder of fact because they may reasonably be resolved in favor of either party." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. , 477 U.S. 242, 250, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). When the Court looks at the evidence presented by the parties, it must credit the non-moving party's evidence and draw all justifiable inferences in the non-moving party's favor. Id. at 255, 106 S.Ct. 2505. But inferences are not drawn out of the air. It is the non-moving party's obligation to produce a factual predicate from which the inference may be drawn. Mayweathers v. Terhune , 328 F.Supp.2d 1086, 1092–93 (E.D. Cal. 2004).

When the moving party will have the burden of proof on an issue at trial, it must affirmatively demonstrate that no reasonable trier of fact could do anything but find in its favor. Soremekun v. Thrifty Payless, Inc. , 509 F.3d 978, 984 (9th Cir. 2007). If the moving party carries its initial burden, the burden then shifts to the non-moving party, who "must establish that there is a genuine issue of material fact." Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp. , 475 U.S. 574, 585, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986). The non-moving party cannot merely rely upon the pleadings. Estate of Tucker ex rel. Tucker v. Interscope Records , 515 F.3d 1019, 1030 (9th Cir. 2008). Instead, it must produce evidence setting forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. Id.

In resolving the merits of a party's motion for summary judgment, the Court's role is not to evaluate the evidence and decide the truth of the matter, but to determine whether there is a genuine issue for trial. Anderson , 477 U.S. at 249, 106 S.Ct. 2505. "Where the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the non-moving party, there is no genuine issue for trial." Matsushita , 475 U.S. at 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348 (internal quotations omitted).

III. DISCUSSION

Plaintiffs move for summary judgment on their sixth claim (for violating

248 F.Supp.3d 1007

Labor Code § 226 ) and tenth claim (for civil penalties pursuant to PAGA). The Court addresses those claims in turn.

A. Sixth Claim: California Labor Code § 226

California Labor Code § 226 requires employers to provide their employees with "an accurate itemized statement in writing showing" nine critical payroll elements. CAL. LAB. CODE § 226(a). Employers must provide these wage statements either "semimonthly or at the time of each payment of wages." Id. Section 226 also creates a cause of action for employees whose employers do not provide adequate wage statements. Id. at § 226(e). To recover, a plaintiff must show three elements: "(1) a violation of [§] 226(a); (2) that is ‘knowing and intentional’; and (3) a resulting injury." Garnett v. ADT LLC , 139 F.Supp.3d 1121, 1131 (E.D. Cal. 2015) (quoting Willner v. Manpower Inc. , 35 F.Supp.3d 1116, 1128 (N.D. Cal. 2014) ).

i. Violation of § 226(a)

Plaintiffs must first establish that Defendants violated § 226(a). Plaintiffs contend that Defendants violated § 226(a)(2) in particular. (See ECF No. 44–1 at 7:1–3.) Section 226(a)(2) requires wage statements list the "total hours worked by the employee," unless the employee is exempt from minimum wage and overtime requirements. CAL. LAB. CODE § 226(a)(2) ; id. at § 226(j). Thus, whether Defendants violated § 226(a)(2) turns on two issues: (1) whether Plaintiffs were exempt from minimum wage and overtime requirements and (2), if they were not, whether Defendants provided inadequate wage statements.

a. Exemption from Minimum Wage and Overtime Requirements

The threshold question is whether Plaintiffs were exempt from minimum wage and overtime requirements. Section 226(a)(2) does not require wage statements showing the total hours an employee worked if "the employee is exempt from the payment of minimum wage and overtime under ... [t]he exemption for persons employed in an executive, administrative, or professional capacity provided in any applicable order of the Industrial Welfare Commission." CAL. LAB. CODE § 226(j)(2)(A).

The Industrial Welfare Commission ("IWC") is the state agency empowered to formulate regulations (known as wage orders) governing employment in California. Peabody v. Time Warner Cable, Inc. , 59 Cal.4th 662, 667 n.3, 174 Cal.Rptr.3d 287, 328 P.3d 1028 (2014) ; Ramirez v. Yosemite Water Co. , 20 Cal.4th 785, 795, 85 Cal.Rptr.2d 844, 978 P.2d 2 (1999). Although the IWC was defunded in 2004, its wage orders remain in effect. Murphy v. Kenneth Cole Prods., Inc. , 40 Cal.4th 1094, 1102 n.4, 56 Cal.Rptr.3d 880, 155 P.3d 284 (2007). The IWC has issued wage orders covering sixteen specific industries and occupations. See CAL. CODE REGS. tit. 8, §§ 11010 – 11160 ; see also Martinez v. Combs , 49 Cal.4th 35, 57, 109 Cal.Rptr.3d 514, 231 P.3d 259 (2010).

Wage Order 5–2001 is relevant here. Wage Order 5–2001 regulates...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 cases
  • Torres v. Carescope, LLC
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California
    • 24 Noviembre 2020
    ...analyzed whether application of the 2013 amendment would violate the rule against retroactive legislation. Cabardo v. Patacsil, 248 F. Supp. 3d 1002, 1012 (E.D. Cal. 2017). The Court concluded the amendment "merely clarified the injury requirement, rather than propounding a 'substantive shi......
  • Garybo v. Leonardo Bros.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California
    • 27 Mayo 2020
    ...who has shown a failure to provide paid rest periods may also seek penalties under PAGA for the violation. See Cabardo v. Patacsil, 248 F. Supp. 3d 1002, 1013 (E.D. Cal. 2017) ("Plaintiffs can recover both the statutory penalties set forth in § 226(e) and civil penalties pursuant to PAGA");......
  • Bernstein v. Virgin Am., Inc., Case No. 15-cv-02277-JST
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of California
    • 16 Enero 2019
    ...2017 WL 6888506, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 25, 2017) (permitting recovery under both PAGA and section 226(e) ); Cabardo v. Patacsil , 248 F.Supp.3d 1002, 1013 (E.D. Cal. 2017) ("Here, Plaintiffs can recover both the statutory penalties set forth in § 226(e) and civil penalties pursuant to PAGA......
  • Magadia v. Wal-Mart Assocs., Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of California
    • 11 Mayo 2018
    ...a penalty, Plaintiff can recover penalties under § 2699(f) for Wal-Mart's violations of § 226(a). Id. ; see Cabardo v. Patacsil , 248 F.Supp.3d 1002, 1013–14 (E.D. Cal. 2017) (noting same).2 At the time Bradescu was decided, the mandatory waiting period in California Labor Code § 2699.3(a)(......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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