Vallejo v. Sterigenics U.S., LLC
| Decision Date | 12 April 2023 |
| Docket Number | 20-cv-01788-AJB-AHG |
| Parties | ALEXANDER VALLEJO, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. STERIGENICS U.S., LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of California |
ORDER DENYING PROPOSED INTERVENOR'S MOTION TO INTERVENE (Doc. No. 77)
Presently before the Court is nonparty Anthony Freeman's (“Freeman”) motion to intervene and for leave to file an Opposition to the Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement, or in the alternative, a Motion to Deny Preliminary Approval. (Doc. No. 77.) Both Plaintiff and Defendant oppose the motion. (Doc. Nos. 82, 84.) The Court finds the matters suitable for decision on the papers and without oral argument, pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7.1.d.1. Accordingly, the Court hereby VACATES the hearing currently set for April 27, 2023, at 2:00 p.m. As set forth more fully below, the Court DENIES Freeman's motion.
Freeman the named plaintiff in a separate class action lawsuit against Defendant Sterigenics U.S., LLC (“Defendant”), seeks to intervene in the instant action and moves for leave to file an Opposition to the Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement, or in the alternative, a Motion to Deny Preliminary Approval. (Doc. No. 77.) This motion arose in the context of the Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action and PAGA Settlement in the instant case. (See Doc. No. 69.)
In the instant case, Plaintiff Alexander Vallejo (“Plaintiff”) alleges violations of wage abuse under California's Labor Codes and Business and Professions Code. Plaintiff's original Complaint alleged causes of action for: (1) unpaid overtime, (2) unpaid meal period premiums, (3) unpaid rest period premiums, (4) unpaid minimum wages, (5) final wages not timely paid, (6) failure to provide accurate wage statements, (7) failure to reimburse expenses, and (8) violation of California Business and Professions Code § 17200, et seq. (Doc. No. 1-3.)
On June 29, 2021, this Court dismissed Plaintiff's sixth claim for failure to provide accurate wage statements without leave to amend, as the claim was time-barred. (See Doc. No. 17 at 16.) Plaintiff thereafter filed a Second Amended Complaint, to which Defendant filed a motion to dismiss. (Doc. Nos. 27, 31.) The Court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss. (Doc. No. 36.) Plaintiff filed a Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”), alleging claims for: (1) unpaid overtime, (2) unpaid meal period premiums, (3) unpaid rest period premiums, (4) unpaid minimum wages, (5) final wages not timely paid, (6) failure to reimburse expenses, and (7) violation of California Business and Professions Code § 17200, et seq. (TAC, Doc. No. 37.) The TAC defined the Class as “[a]ll current and former non-exempt employees of any of the Defendants within the State of California at any time commencing four (4) years preceding the filing of Plaintiff's complaint up until the time that notice of the certified class action is provided to the class.” (Id. ¶ 11.)
On November 4, 2022, after over 31 months of litigation and two rounds of mediation with the Honorable Magistrate Judge Allison H. Goddard, the parties accepted a mediator's proposal issued by the Magistrate Judge on October 28, 2022. (See Doc. No. 60.) The accepted proposal and settlement agreement specifically contemplated that Plaintiff would file a Fourth Amended Complaint (“4AC”), adding back the previously dismissed claim for failure to provide accurate wage statements, and also include a claim under the California Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) for penalties, that Defendant would not object to Plaintiff's standing to assert these claims, and that the settlement was contingent on the release of such claims. (See Doc. No. 69-2.) As part of the proposed settlement, $25,000 is allocated to the PAGA claims from the proposed settlement total of $875,000. (Id.) Thereafter, on December 20, 2022, Plaintiff submitted his letter to the California Labor & Workforce Development Agency (“LWDA”). (Doc. No. 84 at 5.)
On January 13, 2023, Plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary approval of class action and PAGA settlement, (Doc. No. 69), to which Defendant filed a notice of non-opposition, (Doc. No. 71).
On September 15, 2022, Freeman submitted a notice to the LWDA, at which time there were no other LWDA notices filed against Defendant. (Doc. No. 77 at 10.) The following day, Freeman filed his class action complaint in the San Bernardino Superior Court, alleging claims for: (1) unpaid minimum wages, (2) unpaid overtime wages, (3) unpaid meal period premiums, (4) unpaid rest period premiums, (5) unpaid vested vacation, (6) final wages not timely paid, (7) failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, and (8) unfair and unlawful competition. (Doc. No. 77-3 at 2.) In January 2023, Freeman amended his complaint to add PAGA causes of action after the PAGA's 65-day exhaustion period had elapsed. (See Doc. No. 77-4.) Thereafter, on February 7, 2023, Defendant's counsel first informed Freeman's counsel of the pending settlement in the instant case. (Doc. No. 77 at 10.)
Upon learning of the settlement, Freeman limited his action to allege only Wage Statement Claims and PAGA Claims, dismissing all other claims without prejudice. (Id. at 9.)
Under Federal Rule of Evidence 201, the court may take judicial notice of a fact that is “not subject to reasonable dispute because it: (1) is generally known within the territorial jurisdiction; or (2) can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.” Fed.R.Evid. 201(b).
Freeman asks the Court to take judicial notice of five exhibits in support of his motion to intervene: (1) the original Complaint filed in Freeman v. Sterigenics, U.S., LLC, et al., case no. CIVSB2220535 (“Freeman Action”), in the San Bernardino Superior Court, on September 16, 2022; (2) the First Amended Complaint filed in the Freeman Action on January 12, 2023; (3) Freeman's notice to the LWDA, submitted on September 15, 2022; (4) the Order granting the Request for Dismissal of Causes of Action Numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 8 in the Freeman Action, signed February 21, 2023; and (5) a copy of the search results for PAGA notices filed against Sterigenics as of February 23, 2023. (Doc. No. 772 at 2.)
Neither Plaintiff nor Defendant oppose judicial notice of these documents. (See generally Doc. Nos. 82, 84.)
Regarding Freeman's first four requests, a “court may take judicial notice of court records in another case.” United States v. Howard, 381 F.3d 873, 876 n.1 (9th Cir. 2004). However, “[w]hile the authenticity and existence of a particular order, motion, pleading or judicial proceeding, which is a matter of public record, is judicially noticeable, veracity and validity of its contents . . . are not.” United States v. S. Cal. Edison Co., 300 F.Supp.2d 964, 974 (E.D. Cal. 2004). Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Freeman's request for judicial notice for the stated purpose that these documents exist.
As to Freeman's request for judicial notice of the PAGA notices, judicial notice is appropriate because they are part of the public record. The Court, therefore, GRANTS the request.
Freeman seeks to intervene in this matter pursuant to Rule 24(a), or alternatively, Rule 24(b). (Doc. No. 77.) Freeman asserts intervention under either provision is appropriate because Plaintiff lacks standing to pursue his Wage Statement claim arising under California Labor Code § 226 and claims under PAGA, and that the parties included these two last-minute claims to “deprive the proposed Plaintiff in Intervention, the putative class members, the State of California and Aggrieved Employees from further pursuing those two claims in exchange for pennies on the dollar.” (Id. at 3, 7.) Freeman further asserts these two claims were added “in order to subsume those same claims alleged in the Freeman matter.” (Id. at 9.)
In relevant part, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a) provides:
On timely motion, the court must permit anyone to intervene who . . . claims an interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of the action, and is so situated that disposing of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede the movant's ability to protect its interest, unless existing parties adequately represent that interest.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a). There are four requirements for intervention as of right: (1) timeliness; (2) an interest relating to property or transaction that is the subject of the action; (3) disposition of the action may impair or impede the movant's ability to protect the interest; and (4) the movant's interest is not adequately represented by existing parties. Nw. Forest Res. Council v. Glickman, 82 F.3d 825, 836 (9th Cir. 1996), as amended on denial of reh'g (May 30, 1996). The party seeking to intervene bears the burden of showing that all of the requirements for intervention are satisfied. United States v. Alisal Water Corp., 370 F.3d 915, 919 (9th Cir. 2004). Failure to satisfy even one of these elements prohibits the applicant from intervening as of right. League of United Latin Am. Citizens v. Wilson, 131 F.3d 1297, 1302 (9th Cir. 1997). In deciding a motion to intervene, courts need not take as true allegations that are a sham or frivolous. Sw. Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Berg, 268 F.3d 810, 820 (9th Cir. 2001).
First Freeman's motion for intervention must be timely. Fed.R.Civ.P. 24(a). ...
To continue reading
Request your trial