Clark v. QG Printing II, LLC
| Decision Date | 05 January 2021 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 1:18-cv-00899-AWI-EPG |
| Parties | PAUL CLARK, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. QG PRINTING II, LLC, a Connecticut limited liability company; QUAD/GRAPHICS, INC., a Wisconsin corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California |
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO INTERVENE
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STRIKE
Prospective Plaintiff-Intervenor Elith Chris Ramos brings a motion to intervene, Doc. No. 57, in this action on the grounds that a claim under California's Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA") in this action overlaps with a PAGA claim he brought in state court. He also brings a motion to strike a statement filed in opposition to his motion after the motion was taken under submission. For the reasons set forth below, the Court will deny both motions.
Plaintiff Paul Clark brings this class action against Quad/Graphics, Inc. ("QG") and QG Printing II, LLC ("QG Printing") (together, "Defendants") in connection with alleged wage-and-hour violations at four commercial printing facilities in California. It was removed to this Court on June 29, 2018 on diversity grounds under the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA"), 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d). Doc. No. 1. Clark brought a motion for class certification on November 8, 2019, Doc. No. 46, after filing two amended complaints. Doc. No. 14 and 34. The Court certified two claims for class aggregation under Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for the period from May 29, 2014 through September 17, 2020. Doc. No. 54. First, the Court certified claims that Defendants used invalid, blanket waivers to deprive employees of meal breaks ("Meals Break Waiver Claims"). Second, the Court certified claims that Defendants failed to provide legally sufficient reimbursement for the purchase of protective steel-toed boots ("Business Expense Claims"). Id. In addition, Clark seeks civil penalties under PAGA, California Labor Code §§ 2698, et seq. ("PAGA Claims"), for Labor Code1 violations, including Defendants' alleged failure to provide reimbursement for the purchase of steel-toed shoes. Doc. No. 34 at 30.2
Ramos was a maintenance employee in one of the California printing facilities at issue in this action for a 22-month period extending from June 29, 2016 to May 1, 2018. Doc. No. 62-1, ¶ 9. On September 24, 2018, Ramos submitted a PAGA Notice to the California Labor & Workforce Development Agency ("LWDA") asserting that Defendants failed to reimburse maintenance employees who did not earn at least double the minimum wage for hand tool purchases, in violation of Sections 2802 and 1197 of the Labor Code. Doc. No. 57-1 at 2:8-12; Doc. No. 57-2 at 6-7. The notice also states that QG Printing "failed to list the complete and correct name and address of the legal entity that is the employer on the wage statements of all of its California employees, ... in violation of Labor Code § 226(a)(8)." Doc. No. 57-1, Ex. 1.
On December 3, 2018, Ramos filed an action against Defendants in the Merced Superior Court (the "State Court Action") alleging four claims: (1) an individual claim for failure to provide reimbursement for hand tool expenditures in violation of Labor Code § 2802; (2) an individual claim for unfair competition in violation of California Business & Professions Code § 17200; (3) an individual claim for failure to pay minimum wage in violation of Labor Code § 1197; and (4) a representative claim for civil penalties under PAGA predicated on Defendants' failure to provide reimbursement for hand tool expenditures. Doc. No. 57-2 at 9-19.
On February 21, 2019, Defendants filed a motion to stay the State Court Action based onthe risk of inconsistent findings with respect to overlapping issues. Doc. No. 57-2 at 1:16-19 & Ex. 3. Specifically, the motion asserted that the State Court Action alleged "identical issues to those alleged" in this case, Doc. No. 57-2 at 21:28-22:29, and that Ramos sought to "represent alleged aggrieved employees under PAGA, seeking PAGA penalties for the same wage and hour violations as those alleged [in this action] for a time period covered by [this action]." Doc. No. 57-2 at 22:9-12. The motion to stay was granted on April 3, 2019. Doc. No. 63 at 5:27-28.
On October 5, 2020, Ramos filed a motion for intervention of right in this action, pursuant to Rule 24(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Doc. No. 57; Doc. No. 57-1, Part III.a. The motion attached a Complaint-in-Intervention seeking civil penalties under PAGA for Defendants' alleged failure to reimburse maintenance employees for hand tools, in violation of Sections 1182.12, 1194, 1194.2, 1197 and 2802, subdivisions (a)-(d), of the Labor Code, and for Defendants' alleged failure to provide complete and correct employer information on wage statements, in violation of Section 226, subdivision (a)(8), of the Labor Code. Doc. No. 57-2 at 117-22. The PAGA claim is the only claim set forth in the Complaint-in-Intervention. Id. Clark and the Defendants filed separate oppositions to the motion, Doc. Nos. 62 and 63, and Ramos replied to each opposition. Doc. Nos. 64 and 65.
On December 3, 2020, Defendants' filed a statement of recent decision informing the Court that the Merced Superior Court had lifted the stay in the State Court Action on October 30, 2020 and arguing that Ramos's motion to intervene should be denied on that additional basis. Doc. No. 67. The same day, Ramos filed a motion to strike the statement on the grounds that it was untimely and on the grounds that Defendants failed to make argument relating to a possible lifting of the stay in their opposition. Doc. No. 68.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24 allows for two types of intervention in an existing action: intervention of right under Rule 24(a)3 and permissive intervention under Rule 24(b). Chambers Med. Found. v. Chambers, 236 F.R.D. 299, 301-02 (W.D. La. 2006), aff'd, 2006 WL1895462 (W.D. La. July 5, 2006), and aff'd sub nom. Chambers Med. Found. v. Petrie, 221 F. App'x 349 (5th Cir. 2007).
The Ninth Circuit applies a four-part test to analyze intervention as of right under Rule 24(a)(2):4 (1) the motion must be timely; (2) the applicant must claim a "significantly protectable" interest relating to the property or transaction which is the subject of the action; (3) the applicant must be so situated that the disposition of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede its ability to protect that interest; and (4) the applicant's interest must be inadequately represented by the parties to the action. Chamness v. Bowen, 722 F.3d 1110, 1121 (9th Cir. 2013); Sierra Club v. U.S. EPA, 995 F.2d 1478, 1481 (9th Cir. 1993).
A motion to intervene "must state the grounds for intervention and be accompanied by a pleading that sets out the claim or defense for which intervention is sought." Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(c). Rule 24 is to be interpreted broadly in favor of intervention, Prete v. Bradbury, 438 F.3d 949, 954 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting United States v. Alisal Water Corp., 370 F.3d 915, 919 (9th Cir. 2004)), but the proposed intervenor has the burden of proving each element. American Nat'l Bank and Trust Co. v. City of Chicago, 865 F.2d 144, 146 (7th Cir. 1989).
Clark's counsel informed Ramos's counsel that a PAGA settlement in this action could release claims relating to reimbursement for hand tools, as well as claims relating to reimbursement for steel toed boots, for a period of time not covered by the PAGA claim in this case. Doc. No. 57-1 at 2:26-28. Ramos contends that he must be permitted to intervene, pursuant to Rule 24(a)(2), to protect his PAGA claim from being vitiated by settlement that exceeds the scope of Clark's PAGA claim. Doc. No. 57-1 at 2:3-5.
Defendants argue that Ramos's motion to intervene must be denied for lack of jurisdictionbecause the Court is barred under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 from exercising supplemental jurisdiction over Ramos's claims and Ramos cannot establish an independent basis for jurisdiction. Doc. No. 62, Part II. Further, Defendants argue that Ramos has no protectable interest in the disposition of the PAGA claim in this action because: (i) PAGA claims belong to the State of California, not to their litigation proxies or other aggrieved employees; and (ii) as the real party in interest in all PAGA claims, the State of California is already a party to this action. Id., Part III.A.1. Further, Defendants argue that Ramos's motion to intervene is not timely, given the fairly advanced stage of this litigation and the amount of time that passed between the assertion of the PAGA claim in this action and the filing of the instant motion. Id., Part III.A.2. Finally, Defendants contend that Ramos has failed to show that Clark or his counsel are inadequate to protect California's interests in connection with the PAGA claim in this action. Id., Part III.A.3.
Clark argues that Ramos's motion is untimely, Doc. No. 62, Part III.B., and that Ramos does not have a substantial protectable interest in this action because: (i) the prospect and terms of settlement are speculative; (ii) there is only a 10-week overlap in the period covered by Ramos's PAGA claim and the period covered by Clark's PAGA claim; and (iii) the State of California—through LWDA—is the real party in interest in this case. Id., Part C. Further, Clark argues that Ramos could protect whatever interests he may have by seeking to lift the stay in the State Court Action or by exercising his rights to object to settlement as a member of the settlement class in this action. Id., Part D. Finally, Clark argues that Ramos has failed to show that Clark and his counsel cannot "adequately protect [Ramos's] interests as a proxy of the state prosecuting a PAGA claim." Id., Part E.
Ramos...
To continue reading
Request your trial