Gessele v. Jack in the Box, Inc., 3:14-CV-01092-BR
| Decision Date | 13 November 2019 |
| Docket Number | 3:14-CV-01092-BR |
| Citation | 427 F.Supp.3d 1276 |
| Parties | Jessica GESSELE, Ashley Ortiz, Nicole Gessele, Tricia Tetrault, and Christina Mauldin, 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.
DOUGLAS S. PARKER, JENNIFER NETH WARBERG, DON STAIT, Littler Mendelson, P.C., 121 S.W. Morrison Street, Suite 900, Portland, OR 97204, (503) 221-0309, Attorneys for Defendant.
DEFENDANT'S MOTION (#161) FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT NO. 1 - ARBITRATION OF CLAIM...1292
DEFENDANT'S MOTION (#162) FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT NO. 2 - WBF DEDUCTION CLAIMS BARRED BY TAX LAWS...1297
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION (#172) FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE ISSUE OF PRIMA FACIE LIABILITY ON THEIR WORKERS' BENEFIT FUND CLAIMS...1304
PLAINTIFFS' MOTIONS (#173, #179, #180, #181) RELATED TO THEIR SHOE CLAIMS...1308
DEFENDANT'S MOTION (#163) FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT NO. 3 - REMEDIES RELATED TO ALLEGED WRONGFUL DEDUCTIONS ARE LIMITED...1322
DEFENDANT'S MOTION (#164) FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT NO. 4 - BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY TORT CLAIMS IS TIME-BARRED...1327
DEFENDANT'S MOTION (#165) FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT NO. 5 - QUASI-CONTRACT/UNJUST ENRICHMENT CLAIM FAILS AS A MATTER OF LAW...1334
PLAINTIFFS' MOTION (#174) FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE ISSUE OF PRIMA FACIE LIABILITY ON THEIR FRANCHISE TRANSFER CLAIMS AND PLAINTIFFS' MOTION (#178) FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE ISSUE OF DAMAGES UNDER O.R.S. 652.140...1337
This matter comes before the Court on the following Motions by Defendant Jack in the Box, Inc.:
and on the following Motions by Plaintiffs Jessica Gessele, Ashley Ortiz, Nicole Gessele, Tricia Tetrault, and Christina Mauldin:
The Court concludes the record for each of these Motions is sufficiently developed, and, particularly in light of the many interrelated issues raised in these several motions, oral argument would not be helpful to resolve them. See United States v. Delgado , 640 F. App'x 620, 621 (9th Cir. 2016) ()(quotation omitted)); L.R. 7-1(d)("The Court will determine whether oral argument would help it resolve the matter.").
For the following reasons the Court:
1. DENIES Defendant's Motion (#161) for Summary Judgment No. 1 - Arbitration of Claim;
2. DENIES Defendant's Motion (#162) for Summary Judgment No. 2 - WBF Deduction Claims Barred by Tax Laws;
3. GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Defendant's Motion (#163) for Summary Judgment No. 3 - Remedies Related to Alleged Wrongful Deductions Are Limited;
4. GRANTS Defendant's Motion (#164) for Summary Judgment No. 4 - Breach of Fiduciary Duty Tort Claims is Time-Barred;
5. DENIES Defendant's Motion (#165) for Summary Judgment No. 5 - Quasi-Contract/Unjust Enrichment Claim Fails as a Matter of Law;
Until September 30, 2011, Defendant Jack in the Box, Inc., owned and operated several restaurants in Oregon. From May 2006 through September 2011 Defendant sold its Oregon restaurants to various franchise operators as follows:
May 1, 2006: 6 restaurants
March 29, 2010: 21 restaurants
March 7, 2011: 13 restaurants
September 30, 2011: 3 restaurants
After September 30, 2011, Defendant did not own or operate any restaurants in Oregon and did not have any Oregon employees. The last Jack in the Box restaurant in Oregon owned by Defendant at which any of the named Plaintiffs worked was sold to Northwest Group, Inc. (NWG) on March 29, 2010.
Plaintiffs were employed by Defendant in its Oregon restaurants at various times. Plaintiffs received their final paychecks from Defendant on the following dates:
Tricia Tetrault: July 11, 2008
Ashley Ortiz: December 26, 2008
Nicole Gessele: March 20, 2009
Jessica Gessele: November 23, 2009
Christina Mauldin: March 30, 2010
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 in this Court against Defendant Jack in the Box (Gessele I , Case No. 3:10-CV-00960-ST)1 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 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 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...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Makaneole v. Solarworld Indus. Am.
...willfully if, having the financial ability to pay wages which he knows he owes, fails to pay them. Gessele v. Jack in the Box, Inc., 427 F.Supp.3d 1276, 1305 (D. Or. 2019). The statute was not intended to impose liability where the employer's refusal to pay wages is based upon a bona fide b......
-
Albiston v. Three Leaves LLC
...Stavrum v. N.W. Precision Const. LLC, Case No. 3:21-cv-01761-SB, 2022 WL 16798577, at *6 (D. Or. Oct. 14, 2022) (following Brinkman and Gessele). This Court also finds the reasoning of Brinkman persuasive and so joins with the other courts of this District and concludes that a plaintiff who......
-
Humbert v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co.
...of whether the statute is ambiguous, if the legislative history is useful to the court's analysis. See Gessele v. Jack in the Box, Inc., 427 F. Supp. 3d 1276, 1299 (D. Or. 2019) (applying the Oregon Supreme Court's methodology for interpreting a statute: (1) "'examination of text and contex......