Gessele v. Jack in the Box, Inc.
| Decision Date | 13 December 2016 |
| Docket Number | 3:14-CV-1092-BR |
| Parties | JESSICA GESSELE, ASHLEY ORTIZ, NICOLE GESSELE, TRICIA TETRAULT, CHRISTINA MAULDIN, and JASON DIAZ on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. JACK IN THE BOX, INC., a Corporation of Delaware, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Oregon |
JON M. EGAN
240 Sixth Street
Lake Oswego, OR 97034-2931
(503) 697-3427
Attorney for Plaintiffs
Littler Mendelson, P.C.
121 S.W. Morrison Street
Suite 900
Portland, OR 97204
(503) 221-0309
Attorneys for Defendant
This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Jack in the Box, Inc.'s Motion (#95) for Partial Summary Judgment. For the reasons that follow, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Defendant's Motion.
Plaintiffs were employed by Defendant Jack in the Box, Inc., in its Oregon restaurants at various times. Plaintiffs received their final paychecks from Defendant on the following dates:
On March 29, 2010, Jack in the Box "franchised" several corporate-owned Jack in the Box restaurants (including the restaurant at which Mauldin and Diaz were employed) to franchisee Northwest Group, Inc. (NWG).
On August 13, 2010, Jessica Gessele, Ashley Ortiz, Nicole Gessele, and Tricia Tetrault, on behalf of all those similarly situated, filed a putative class-action Complaint (Gessele I)1 in this Court against Jack in the Box for violation of the minimum-wage and overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act(FLSA), 29 U.S.C. § 201, et seq., and various Oregon wage-and-hour laws. Gessele I was assigned to Magistrate Judge Janice M. Stewart.
On January 4, 2011, Jason Diaz filed a Complaint in this Court against Jack in the Box and three of its franchisees: NWG; PSNW Enterprises, LLC; and VR, Inc. (Diaz I) in which he alleged claims for violation of the minimum-wage and overtime provisions of the FLSA and Oregon wage-and-hour statutes, unpaid wages on termination in violation of Oregon statutes, wrongful deductions in violation of Oregon Revised Statute § 652.610, wrongful method of payment in violation of Oregon Revised Statute § 652.110, and use of an unregistered business name in violation of Oregon Revised Statute § 648.007. Diaz I was assigned to Senior District Judge Robert E. Jones.
On May 5, 2011, Judge Jones issued an opinion and order in Diaz I in which he granted the franchise defendants' motion to compel arbitration of Diaz's claims on the ground that Diaz's claims against those defendants were encompassed by an arbitration agreement that Diaz entered into on March 29, 2010, when his employment transferred to franchisee NWG.
On May 16, 2011, Jessica Gessele, Ashley Ortiz, Nicole Gessele, and Tricia Tetrault filed a First Amended Complaint in Gessele I in which they added Christina Mauldin as a named Plaintiff.
On May 30, 2011, Diaz filed an Amended Complaint in Diaz I in which he alleged claims only against Jack in the Box for violation of the minimum-wage and overtime provisions of the FLSA and Oregon wage-and-hour statutes, unpaid wages on termination in violation of Oregon statutes, wrongful deductions in violation of Oregon Revised Statute § 652.610, and wrongful method of payment in violation of Oregon Revised Statute § 652.110.
On July 6, 2011, Diaz filed in Diaz I an unopposed Motion to Dismiss his claims without prejudice. On July 8, 2011, Judge Jones entered an Order granting the Motion to Dismiss and a Judgment dismissing Diaz I without prejudice.
On March 20, 2012, Jessica Gessele, Ashley Ortiz, Nicole Gessele, Tricia Tetrault, and Christina Mauldin filed a Second Amended Complaint in Gessele I in which they alleged Defendant (1) failed to pay minimum wages in violation of the FLSA, (2) failed to pay overtime wages in violation of the FLSA, (3) failed to pay minimum wages in violation of Oregon Revised Statute § 653.025, (4) failed to pay overtime wages in violation of Oregon Revised Statute § 653.261, (5) failed to pay all wages due after termination of Plaintiffs' employment in violation of Oregon Revised Statute § 652.140, (6) deducted unauthorized amounts from Plaintiffs' paychecks in violation of Oregon Revised Statute § 652.610, and (7) failed to pay all wages when due as required by Oregon Revised Statute § 652.120.
On December 13, 2012, Jessica Gessele, Ashley Ortiz, Nicole Gessele, Tricia Tetrault, and Christina Mauldin filed a Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint in Gessele I. On January 7, 2013, Magistrate Judge Stewart denied the Motion on the grounds of undue delay and prejudice.
On June 26, 2013, Gessele I was reassigned to this Court.
On November 5, 2013, Jason Diaz filed a Consent to Join Law Suit in Gessele I. Diaz, however, did not become a named Plaintiff in Gessele I.
On March 19, 2014, this Court issued an Opinion and Order in Gessele I in which it granted Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment on the ground that Jessica Gessele, Ashley Ortiz, Nicole Gessele, Tricia Tetrault, and Christina Mauldin were required to file written consents with the Court to commence their FLSA collective action, but they failed to file those written consent forms timely.2 The Court, therefore, concluded it never acquired jurisdiction over the FLSA claims of Jessica Gessele, Ashley Ortiz, Nicole Gessele, Tricia Tetrault, and Christina Mauldin, and, as a result, the Court could not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over their state-law claims. The Court also concluded Jessica Gessele, Ashley Ortiz, Nicole Gessele, Tricia Tetrault, and Christina Mauldin did not file written consentswithin the applicable limitations period; neither equitable tolling nor equitable estoppel applied; and, therefore, their FLSA claims were barred by the applicable statute of limitations. The Court dismissed the FLSA claims of Jessica Gessele, Ashley Ortiz, Nicole Gessele, Tricia Tetrault, and Christina Mauldin with prejudice and dismissed their state-law claims without prejudice.
On April 16, 2014, Jessica Gessele, Ashley Ortiz, Nicole Gessele, Tricia Tetrault, and Christina Mauldin filed in Gessele I an unopposed Motion to Amend/Correct in which they moved the Court to amend its March 19, 2014, Opinion and Order to dismiss their FLSA claims without prejudice on the ground that the Court lacked jurisdiction over those claims.
On May 15, 2014, the Court granted the Motion to Amend/Correct in Gessele I and issued an Amended Opinion and Order in which it granted Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment on the ground that Jessica Gessele, Ashley Ortiz, Nicole Gessele, Tricia Tetrault, and Christina Mauldin failed to timely file written consent forms as required by the FLSA. The Court, therefore, never acquired jurisdiction over Jessica Gessele, Ashley Ortiz, Nicole Gessele, Tricia Tetrault, and Christina Mauldin's FLSA claims, and, as a result, the Court could not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over their state-law claims. Accordingly, on May 15, 2014, the Court entered a Judgmentdismissing the entire matter without prejudice.
On June 10, 2014, Jessica Gessele, Ashley Ortiz, Nicole Gessele, Tricia Tetrault, Christina Mauldin, and Jason Diaz filed a putative class action against Jack in the Box in Multnomah County Circuit Court (Gessele II) in which they alleged claims for violation of Oregon's wage-and-hour laws, violation of the FLSA, breach of fiduciary duty, and equitable and quasi-contractual claims for return of money.
On July 9, 2014, Defendant removed Gessele II to this Court on the grounds of federal-question jurisdiction based on Plaintiffs' FLSA claims and/or jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2).
On August 8, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Remand Case to State Court on the grounds that (1) issue preclusion/collateral estoppel barred litigation of Gessele II in this Court; (2) if issue preclusion did not bar litigation, the "law of the case" barred litigation in this Court; and (3) judicial estoppel barred litigation of Gessele II in this Court even if neither issue preclusion nor law of the case barred such litigation.
On October 17, 2014, the Court entered an Opinion and Order in Gessele II in which it granted in part and denied in part Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand. The Court concluded (1) although issue preclusion barred relitigation as to whether the Court hadjurisdiction to hear the FLSA claims of Jessica Gessele, Ashley Ortiz, Nicole Gessele, Tricia Tetrault, and Christina Mauldin, it did not bar litigation of Diaz's FLSA claims against Defendant brought for the first time in Gessele II; (2) relitigation of this Court's jurisdiction was not barred by the law of the case; (3) because Diaz was never a named Plaintiff in Gessele I, the Court's decision regarding its jurisdiction over that matter did not apply to Diaz, and, therefore, judicial estoppel did not apply nor require remand of Diaz's FLSA claims; (4) judicial estoppel applied to and estopped Defendant from relitigating the issue of this Court's lack of jurisdiction over the FLSA claims of Jessica Gessele, Ashley Ortiz, Nicole Gessele, Tricia Tetrault, and Christina Mauldin; and (5) Defendant did not waive its right to remove Gessele II by pursuing dismissal in Gessele I on jurisdictional grounds.
On October 29, 2014, Defendant moved for a stay of Gessele II pending the outcome of Defendant's appeal of the Court's October 17, 2014, Opinion and Order, which Defendant intended to file in the Ninth Circuit.
On November 6, 2014, the Court granted Defendant's Motion for Stay.
On June 11, 2015, the Ninth Circuit issued a Mandate in which it reversed in part and remanded the matter to this Court for further proceedings. Specifically, the Ninth Circuit held(1) Defendant is precluded from relitigating "the...
To continue reading
Request your trial