Vasserman v. Henry Mayo Newhall Mem'l Hosp.

• Decision Date: 05 December 2014
• Docket Number: Case No. CV 14–06245 MMM PLAx.
• Citation: 65 F.Supp.3d 932
• Court: U.S. District Court — Central District of California
• Parties: Tanya VASSERMAN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated and the general public, Plaintiff, v. HENRY MAYO NEWHALL MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, and Does 1 to 100, inclusive, Defendants.

65 F.Supp.3d 932

Tanya VASSERMAN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated and the general public, Plaintiff
v.
HENRY MAYO NEWHALL MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, and Does 1 to 100, inclusive, Defendants.

Case No. CV 14–06245 MMM PLAx.

United States District Court, C.D. California.

Signed Dec. 5, 2014.

65 F.Supp.3d 938

Bruce Zareh Kokozian, Kokozian Law Firm APC, Beverly Hills, CA, Gregg Lander, Kevin T. Barnes, Law Offices of Kevin T. Barnes, Los Angeles, CA, Janelle C. Carney, Jason T. Hatcher, Joseph Antonelli, Law Office of Joseph Antonelli, Chino Hills, CA, for Plaintiff.

Aaron F. Olsen, Michael S. Kun, Epstein Becker and Green PC, Epstein Becker & Green PC, Lisa Mariko Watanabe, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants.

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REMAND AND DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS AS MOOT

MARGARET M. MORROW, District Judge.

On June 18, 2014, Tanya Vasserman filed this putative class action in Los Angeles Superior Court against Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial Hospital (“Newhall Memorial”) and various fictitious defendants, alleging violations of state wage and hour laws.¹ Newhall Memorial removed the action on August 8, 2014, invoking the court's federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and diversity jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (“CAFA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d).² Newhall Memorial asserts the court has federal question jurisdiction because Vasserman's state law claims are preempted by the Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (“LMRA”), 29 U.S.C. § 185.³ It asserts additionally that if no federal question is presented, there is minimal diversity and the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million.

On September 8, 2014, Vasserman filed a motion to remand the action to Los Angeles Superior Court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.⁴ The same day, Newhall Memorial filed a motion to dismiss Vasserman's complaint for failure to grieve and arbitrate her claims.⁵ On October 7, 2014, the court entered an order extending the time for the parties to file opposition to the motions to November 3, 2014.⁶ On November 3, 2014, Newhall Memorial opposed Vasserman's motion to remand,⁷ and Vasserman opposed Newhall Memorial's motion to dismiss.⁸

Pursuant to Rule 78 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 7–15, the court finds this matter appropriate for decision without oral argument. The hearing calendared for December 8,

65 F.Supp.3d 939

2014, is therefore vacated, and the matter taken off calendar.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

A. Facts Alleged in the Complaint

1. Factual Allegations Concerning All Plaintiffs

Vasserman is a clinical registered nurse who, prior to this litigation, worked at Newhall Memorial as an hourly, non-exempt employee.⁹ She and the members of the putative class she seeks to represent are current and former employees of Newhall Memorial who were allegedly paid improper wages under Newhall Memorial's straight time pay plan and/or rounding pay plan, and were denied compliant meal periods as required by California law.¹⁰

a. Newhall Memorial's Alleged Failure to Pay All Wages Earned and Appropriate Overtime Compensation

Vasserman alleges, on information and belief, that pursuant to an established business practice and policy, Newhall Memorial schedules its non-exempt hourly employees to work in excess of eight hours a day; at times, it purportedly schedules employees to work shifts in excess of ten and twelve hours.¹¹ Additionally, Newhall Memorial's patient care employees, who include clinical registered nurses like Vasserman, are allegedly scheduled for shifts that exceed eight hours a day and eighty hours per pay period but do not receive straight time and overtime pay as required by law.¹²

Vasserman asserts that Newhall Memorial's policy is to pay straight time, rather than overtime, for all hours worked in excess of eight hours a day.¹³ Because overtime hours are paid at the employee's base rate of pay, rather than at time-and-a-half, Newhall Memorial purportedly pays hourly, non-exempt employees less overtime compensation than they are guaranteed under the California Labor Code.¹⁴ Vasserman alleges that Newhall Memorial designed its overtime compensation policy intentionally to deny its employees a premium rate for overtime hours and to avoid the payment of overtime altogether despite the fact that it has not received a statutory exemption under the California Labor Code.¹⁵

b. Newhall Memorial's Allegedly Improper Meal Policies

Vasserman also alleges that Newhall Memorial's meal period policies violate the California Labor Code and Wage Order 5–2001 of the California Industrial Welfare Commission (“IWC”).¹⁶ Specifically, she asserts that Newhall Memorial violates state law by failing to provide her and other hourly, non-exempt employees compliant meal periods; she asserts that it does so despite having not received a valid waiver of the meal period requirement or having qualified for any statutory exemption.¹⁷ Vasserman alleges that she and other class members consistently worked in excess of five hours without meal breaks because Newhall Memorial regularly discouraged them from taking meal breaks and impeded their ability to take the

65 F.Supp.3d 940

breaks.¹⁸ Vasserman was also allegedly required to answer pager messages during meal breaks, when they were provided, which prevented her from taking an uninterrupted break.¹⁹

c. Newhall Memorial's Alleged Failure to Provide Itemized Wage Statements

Vasserman alleges, on information and belief, that in addition to Newhall Memorial's allegedly unlawful overtime and meal period policies, it consistently failed to provide its employees itemized wage statements in accordance with California Labor Code § 226.²⁰ Specifically, she asserts that Newhall Memorial provided wage statements that did not accurately reflect the employee's actual regular rate of pay; the total hours worked by the employee during the pay period; the net wages earned; the name and address of the employer; and the applicable hourly rates paid during the pay period together with the number of hours worked at each rate of pay.²¹

d. Newhall Memorial's Alleged Failure to Pay Proper Wages as a Result of its Rounding Policy

Finally, Vasserman contends that Newhall Memorial employs a rounding policy in calculating employee wages that disproportionately and negatively impacts employees.²² She asserts that the actual time worked by employees was usually rounded down so that employees were not paid for all time worked.²³ Newhall Memorial purportedly implemented this rounding policy with intent to deceive employees and cause them to believe that they were being paid proper compensation for all hours worked.²⁴

2. The Putative Classes

Vasserman seeks to represent five putative classes of current and former Newhall Memorial employees:²⁵

Class 1: All hourly, non-exempt employees of Newhall Memorial who worked more than eight (8) hours in a day or more than forty (40) hours in a week from four (4) years before the filing of this action through the date of judgment and were not paid proper premium overtime and double time wages (“Pay Plan Class”);

Class 2: All hourly, non-exempt employees who worked for Newhall Memorial at some point from four (4) years before the filing of this action through the date of judgment, and who are no longer employed by Newhall Memorial (“Waiting Time Penalty Class”);

Class 3: All hourly, non-exempt employees who worked for Newhall Memorial from four (4) years before the filing of this action through the date of judgment who were subjected to Newhall Memorial's meal period policies and practices (“Meal Break Class”);

Class 4: All hourly, non-exempt employees who worked for Newhall Memorial from one (1) year before the filing of this action through the date of judgment who were provided a paystub, i.e., wage statement, by Newhall Memorial (“Pay Stub Class”); and

Class 5: All hourly, non-exempt employees who worked for Newhall Memorial

65 F.Supp.3d 941

from four (4) years before the filing of this action through the date of judgment, who were subject to Newhall Memorial's rounding policy and practice (“Rounding Class”).

3. Vasserman's Claims

On behalf of these classes, Vasserman pleads claims for (1) violation of California's Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”), California Business and Professions Code § 17200 et seq.;²⁶ (2) failure to provide overtime compensation in violation of California Labor Code §§ 204, 510, 1194, 1198 ;²⁷ (3) waiting time penalties in violation of California Labor Code § 200 et seq.;²⁸ (4) failure to provide itemized wage statements in violation of California Labor Code § 226 ;²⁹ (5) failure to provide meal breaks in violation of California Labor Code §...