Hildebrandt v. Staples the Office Superstore, LLC

• Citation: 272 Cal.Rptr.3d 297,58 Cal.App.5th 128
• Decision Date: 04 December 2020
• Docket Number: B294642
• Court: California Court of Appeals
• Parties: Von HILDEBRANDT, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. STAPLES THE OFFICE SUPERSTORE, LLC, Defendant and Respondent.

58 Cal.App.5th 128

272 Cal.Rptr.3d 297

Von HILDEBRANDT, Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.STAPLES THE OFFICE SUPERSTORE, LLC, Defendant and Respondent.

B294642

Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 3, California.

Filed December 4, 2020

Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky & Wotkyns, Todd M. Schneider, Carolyn H. Cottrell, Emeryville, and David C. Leimbach, San Diego; Boucher, Raymond P. Boucher, Woodland Hills, Maria L. Weitz, Neil M. Larsen, Beverly Hills, and Alexander Gamez for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Morrison & Foerster, Miriam A. Vogel, Tritia M. Murata, Los Angeles, David P. Zins, Los Angeles, and Karen J. Kubin, San Francisco, for Defendant and Respondent.

EGERTON, J.

Plaintiff Von Hildebrandt appeals a summary judgment entered in favor of defendant Staples the Office Superstore, LLC (Staples). The trial court determined all of Hildebrandt's claims were barred by the applicable statutes of limitations and the pendency of related class actions did not toll the limitations periods. We conclude the trial court erred in applying the class action tolling rules articulated in Jolly v. Eli Lilly & Co. (1988) 44 Cal.3d 1103, 245 Cal.Rptr. 658, 751 P.2d 923 ( Jolly ).

Because Hildebrandt concedes his claim for failure to furnish accurate itemized wage statements (see Lab. Code, § 226 ) is time barred, even if tolling applies, we will affirm the summary adjudication of that claim.¹ In all other respects the summary judgment is reversed.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

"Because this case comes before us after the trial court granted a motion for summary judgment, we take the facts from the record that was before the trial court when it ruled on that motion. [Citation.] ‘ "We review the trial court's decision de novo, considering all the evidence set forth in the moving and opposing papers except that to which objections were made and sustained." ’ [Citation.] We liberally construe the evidence in support of the party opposing summary judgment and resolve doubts concerning the evidence in favor of that party." ( Yanowitz v. L'Oreal USA, Inc . (2005) 36 Cal.4th 1028, 1037, 32 Cal.Rptr.3d 436, 116 P.3d 1123.)

1. The Parties

Staples is a global provider of office products and services. Its Superstores are big-box retail stores catering to individual customers and business clients. By mid-2018, Staples operated more than 160 Superstores across California. The general manager is the highest-level manager in a Superstore and the only manager that Staples classifies as exempt from overtime pay and meal and rest break requirements. General managers are responsible for managing every aspect of a store's operation.

Hildebrandt worked as a salaried general manager for Staples from April 24, 2000 to June 20, 2013. During his employment, Hildebrandt worked at several Staples locations in California.

2. The Hatgis and Wesson Putative Class Actions

On March 11, 2014, Dianne Hatgis, a former Staples Copy and Print Shop general manager, filed a putative class action on behalf of all people employed as general managers at Staples "retail locations" in California. Hatgis asserted claims on behalf of herself and the putative class members for (1) failure to pay overtime compensation ( Lab. Code, § 510 ); (2) failure to authorize and permit rest periods (id ., § 226.7); (3) failure to provide meal periods (id ., §§ 226.7 & 512); (4) failure to furnish accurate itemized wage statements (id ., § 226); (5) failure to timely pay wages upon termination or resignation (id ., §§ 201–203); and (6) violation of the unfair competition law (UCL) ( Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200 ). Hatgis premised her claims on the allegation that Staples misclassified its general managers as exempt employees.

On July 6, 2015, the trial court in the Hatgis action granted Staples's motion to limit the putative class to Staples Copy and Print Shop general managers only. On October 23, 2015, Hatgis voluntarily dismissed her class claims without prejudice.

On September 4, 2015, Fred Wesson, a Staples general manager, filed a putative class action against Staples on behalf of all current and former general managers at Staples Superstore retail locations in California who were employed on or after May 10, 2010. Like Hatgis, Wesson asserted causes of action for (1) failure to pay overtime compensation; (2) failure to authorize and permit rest periods; (3) failure to provide meal periods; (4) failure to furnish accurate itemized wage statements; and (5) violation of the UCL. He alleged Staples misclassified its Superstore general managers as exempt employees to avoid paying overtime compensation and to avoid providing meal and rest breaks.

On April 17, 2017, the trial court denied Wesson's motion for class certification, concluding Wesson failed to show that the class claims were susceptible to common proof and that proceeding as a class action would be superior to other methods of adjudication.² The court determined the "great variation in how Staples store general managers perform their jobs and the extent to which they perform nonexempt tasks" would require "highly individualized determinations" regarding each general manager's exempt status.

3. Hildebrandt's Lawsuit

On June 22, 2017, Hildebrandt filed this action against Staples, asserting the same causes of action that Hatgis and Wesson had pled on behalf of their respective putative classes. Specifically, Hildebrandt's complaint asserts claims for (1) failure to pay overtime compensation; (2) failure to authorize and permit rest periods; (3) failure to provide meal periods; (4) failure to furnish accurate itemized wage statements; (5) failure to pay all wages upon termination; and (6) violation of the UCL. Like the Hatgis and Wesson complaints, Hildebrandt alleges Staples misclassified him and other general managers as exempt employees to avoid paying overtime compensation and providing meal and rest breaks. The complaint asserts the applicable statutes of limitations were tolled during the pendency of the Hatgis and Wesson class certification proceedings.

4. Staples's Motion for Summary Judgment

Staples moved for summary judgment, arguing Hildebrandt's claims were barred by the applicable statutes of limitations. Staples's supporting evidence established that Hildebrandt's employment ended on June 20, 2013 and that he did not file his lawsuit until June 22, 2017—outside the longest limitations period of four years.

Regarding tolling, Staples argued the Hatgis action could not have tolled the statutes of limitations on Hildebrandt's claims because Hatgis was a Staples Copy and Print Shop general manager—not a Superstore general manager like Hildebrandt. As for the Wesson action, Staples argued the denial of class certification for lack of commonality in Wesson raised a "presumption" against tolling. Staples maintained Hildebrandt could not overcome the presumption because, when the Wesson action was filed, Staples had "no way of predicting" which Superstore general managers "would believe themselves to have been deprived of overtime pay and decide to sue." Staples also argued the denial of class certification in Wesson could not have been " ‘unforeseeable’ " to Hildebrandt, since misclassification claims frequently depend on how individual employees perform their jobs.

In his opposition, Hildebrandt acknowledged his claims would be time barred without tolling. However, he argued application of the class action tolling doctrine was necessary to protect the efficiency and economy of the class action device; otherwise putative class members would be induced to file individual actions to avoid the statute of limitations bar, even while class certification proceedings were still pending. And, because his claims were "nearly identical" to those asserted on behalf of the classes in Hatgis and Wesson , Hildebrandt argued those putative class actions put Staples on notice of the substantive claims and generic identities of potential plaintiffs like him during the applicable limitations periods.

5. The Order Granting Summary Judgment

The trial court granted Staples's motion for summary judgment, concluding Hildebrandt's claims were barred by the applicable statutes of limitations and class action tolling did not apply. Relying on Batze v. Safeway, Inc. (2017) 10 Cal.App.5th 440, 216 Cal.Rptr.3d 390 ( Batze ), the court determined the denial of class certification in Wesson due to lack of commonality gave rise to a "presumption" against tolling. And the court concluded Hildebrandt could not overcome that presumption, as a matter of law, because the evidence showed tolling would be "prejudicial" to Staples and the denial of class certification was not "unforeseeable."

Regarding prejudice to Staples, the trial court reasoned the "discrepancies between the claims of the members of the putative class were ‘too great for the [Wesson or Hatgis ] action to have put [Staples] on notice that it needed to preserve evidence with respect to every one of its [Superstore general managers].’ " Staples, the court determined, had "no way of predicting which of its Superstore [general managers], including potentially Hildebrandt, managing dissimilar stores at over hundreds of locations statewide[,] would believe they too were misclassified." And the court found it would have been " ‘unrealistic to expect that the filing of the [Wesson or Hatgis ] action[ ] would have prompted [Staples] to maintain all employment records relating to every [Superstore general manager] or to gather evidence and witness statements pertaining to every [Superstore general manager].’ "

The trial court also found "Hildebrandt fail[ed] to show denial of class certification was unforeseeable." In support of the finding, the court noted "Hildebrandt was in communication with counsel in Wesson , who is now Hildebrandt's counsel, and in Wesson class certification was vigorously contested which reflects denial of class certification was not unforeseeable."

The trial court entered judgment for...