Vasquez v. Leprino Foods Co.

• Decision Date: 29 April 2022
• Docket Number: 1:17-cv-00796-AWI-BAM
• Parties: ISAIAS VASQUEZ and LINDA HEFKE, on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs, v. LEPRINO FOODS COMPANY, a Colorado Corporation; LEPRINO FOODS DAIRY PRODUCTS COMPANY, a Colorado Corporation; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California

ISAIAS VASQUEZ and LINDA HEFKE, on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs, v. LEPRINO FOODS COMPANY, a Colorado Corporation; LEPRINO FOODS DAIRY PRODUCTS COMPANY, a Colorado Corporation; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants.

No. 1:17-cv-00796-AWI-BAM

United States District Court, E.D. California

April 29, 2022

ORDER ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Doc. No. 243)

INTRODUCTION

This class action lawsuit, brought before the Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2), involves an employment dispute between Plaintiff class representatives Isaias Vasquez and Linda Hefke (“Plaintiffs”) and Defendants Leprino Foods Company and Leprino Foods Dairy Products Company (collectively, “Leprino” or “Defendants”). On March 30, 2020, the Court certified Plaintiffs' claim that Defendants required their non-exempt workers to remain “on-call” during their meal and rest breaks in violation of California law.^[1] Before the Court is Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and Motion for Decertification (Doc. No. 243) with respect to Plaintiffs' “on-call” break claim. For the reasons that follow, Defendants' motions will be denied and the Court will stay this case pending the decision of the California Supreme Court in Naranjo v. Spectrum Security Services, Inc., Cal. S.Ct. Docket No. S258966.

SUMMRY JUDGMENT FRAMEWORK

Pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, summary judgment is appropriate when it is demonstrated that there exists no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a); see Fortyune v. Am. Multi-Cinema Inc., 364 F.3d 1075, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2004). The moving party bears the burden of establishing the absence of a genuine issue of material fact, generally by “citing to particular parts of materials in the record” such as depositions, interrogatory answers, declarations, and documents. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); see also Cline v. Indus Maint. Eng'g & Contracting Co., 200 F.3d 1223 1229 (9th Cir. 2000) (citing Celotex Corp. v Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323-24 (1986)). A fact is “material” if it might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248-49 (1986); Thrifty Oil Co. v. Bank of Am. Nat'l Trust & Sav Ass'n, 322 F.3d 1039, 1046 (9th Cir. 2002). A dispute is “genuine” as to a material fact if there is sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to return a verdict for the non-moving party. See Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248; Long v. County of Los Angeles, 442 F.3d 1178, 1185 (9th Cir. 2006). If the moving party does not meet this burden, “[s]ummary judgment may be resisted and must be denied on no other grounds than that the movant has failed to meet its burden of demonstrating the absence of triable issues.” Henry v. Gill Indus., 983 F.2d 943, 950 (9th Cir. 1993).

If the moving party does meet this burden, the burden then shifts to the opposing party to show a genuine issue of material fact. See Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586-87 (1986); Nissan Fire & Marine Ins. Co., Ltd. v. Fritz Companies, 210 F.3d 1099, 1103 (9th Cir. 2000). “[A] party opposing a properly supported motion for summary judgment may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of his pleadings, but ... must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248; Estate of Tucker v. Interscope Records, 515 F.3d 1019, 1030 (9th Cir. 2008). The evidence of the opposing party is to be believed, and all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from the facts placed before the court must be drawn in favor of the opposing party. See Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255; Stegall v. Citadel Broad, Inc., 350 F.3d 1061, 1065 (9th Cir. 2003). Summary judgment may not be granted “where divergent ultimate inferences may reasonably be drawn from the undisputed facts.” Fresno Motors, LLC v. Mercedes Benz USA, LLC, 771 F.3d 1119, 1125 (9th Cir. 2015). Nevertheless, inferences are not drawn out of the air, and it is the opposing party's obligation to produce a factual predicate from which the inference may be drawn. See Juell v. Forest Pharms., Inc., 456 F.Supp.2d 1141, 1149 (E.D. Cal. 2006); UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Sinnott, 300 F.Supp.2d 993, 997 (E.D. Cal. 2004). If the nonmoving party does not produce enough evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact after the burden has shifted, the moving party is entitled to summary judgment. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); Nissan Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 210 F.3d at 1103; Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322.

BACKGROUND^[2]

Leprino manufactures and processes cheese and dairy ingredients at its Lemoore West facility with a workforce of approximately 1, 000 employees. PUMF's 14, 16. The facility operates twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week. PUMF 15. Product “quality” is listed as one of Leprino's core values, and Leprino reminds its employees of the importance of “quality” during meetings and with visuals, including a painting of the word “quality” on the steps at the entrance of the Lemoore West facility. PUMF's 17-20. On each workday a general practice of employees is to follow a policy of “producing] products against a schedule” for Leprino's customers. See Tuttrup Depo. at 79:12-81:4. Leprino trains its employees to “over communicate” with each other to prevent problems before they occur, Anderson Depo. at 129:10-130:5, see PUMF 33, carry out “all written and/or verbal directions and instructions, ” PUMF 31, and avoid “[unnecessary delay of production or operation of equipment, ” Doc. No. 246-1 at 822, ¶ 20. “Insubordination or refusal to follow Supervisor's instructions” is “prohibited conduct” subject to the employee being “warned, counseled, or disciplined, up to and including termination.” PUMF 32.

Leprino has a written “meal break” policy in its employee handbook which, from May 1, 2013 to October 16, 2017, stated in part “Employees are required to take a 30 minute unpaid dutyfree meal break prior to the end of the 5th hour of work. . . . During a meal break, employees are relieved of all duties and are free to leave the facility.” DUMF 1. As of October 16, 2017, Leprino's written meal break policy states in part “Employees who work more than five hours in a day are provided a 30 minute unpaid, uninterrupted, duty-free meal prior to the end of the 5th hour of work. ... During a meal break, employees are relieved of all duties and are free to leave the facility.” DUMF 2.

As for rest breaks, Leprino's employee handbook from May 1, 2013 to March 14, 2017 stated in part “Employees will be provided with one (1) 15-minute paid rest break when they work between 3 1/2 and 6 hours, and a second 15-minute paid rest break when they work between 6 and 10 hours, and a third 15 minute paid rest break when they work between 10 and 14 hours.” Doc. No. 120-1 at 21. From March 14, 2017 to October 16, 2017, the employee handbook extended the length of rest breaks to twenty minutes. Id. at 27. As of October 16, 2017, Leprino's written rest break policy states in part “The Company authorizes and permits employees working at least 3 1/2 hours in a day to take a 20-minute, off-duty paid rest period for each four hours worked or major fraction thereof. Employees will be provided with one (1) 20-minute paid rest break when they work between 3 1/2 and 6 hours, and a second 20-minute paid rest break when they work between 6 and 10 hours, and a third 20-minute paid rest break when they work between 10 and 14 hours.” Id. at 30.

Since at least 2013, Leprino posted a memorandum near its time clocks which stated in part “Employees are required to take a 30-minute unpaid duty-free meal break prior to the end of the 5th hour of work.” DUMF 4. Leprino also posted a sign next to the time clocks that read: “EMPLOYEES ARE EXPECTED TO TAKE A 30 MINUTE LUNCH BREAK RELIEVED OF ALL DUTY.” DUMF 5. In January 2019, Leprino added a sign next to the time clocks stating in part “Employees are expected to take a 30 minute lunch break relieved of all duty. Any employee unable to take a full 30 minute duty free meal break because they are required to come back to work early must notify their supervisor immediately. Employees are not required to have their^2- way radio on during meal or rest breaks.” DUMF 6.

Leprino does not expressly require all hourly employees to take their meal or rest breaks in break rooms. DUMF 8. Some hourly employees have taken breaks outside on the patio, outside in the smoking area, or in their cars in the parking lot. DUMF 9. Additionally, some employees have taken their meal breaks away from the facility. DUMF 9. According to a survey by Plaintiffs' expert Jeffrey S. Petersen, when class members were asked whether they leave the building for their entire meal breaks, 16.3% answered “always” or “most of the time, ” 20.7% answered “occasionally, ” and 63% answered “rarely” or “never.” See Doc. No. 243-1 at 57, Ex. 2. When asked whether they leave the building for their entire rest breaks, 9.8% answered “always” or “most of the time, ” 6.9% answered “occasionally, ” and 82.5% answered “rarely” or “never.” See Id. For some positions during meal and rest breaks, Leprino provides “break relief, ” which is designed to have other employees come in to take over the duties of those on break until they return. DUMF 7; PUMF 72.

Many class members during their breaks received direct communications from supervisors, group leaders, and those providing break relief. See PUMF's 51, 57, 60 64, 84. According to several class members, the communications included inquiries related to work or commands to return to work to address urgent issues. See Benedict Depo. Vol. I at 31:2-19, 93:9- 94:12, 95:4- 18, 105:4-107:17; Olivarez...