Augustus v. ABM (CA Court of Appeals)

81 Pages·2013·2.81 MB·English

Nos. B243788 and B247392
Nos. B243788 and B247392
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION 1
JENNIFER AUGUSTUS, Individually and on Behalf of All Similarly
Situated Individuals,
Plaintiff and Appellee,
v.
ABM SECURITY SERVICES, INC., formerly d.b.a.
AMERICAN COMMERCIAL SECURITY SERVICES, INC.,
Defendant and Appellant.
On Appeal From The Los Angeles Superior Court
The Honorable John Wiley, Jr.
Nos. BC336416, BC345918 and CG5444421
APPELLANT'S OPENING BRIEF
MITRA. JACOBY (150233) THEODOREJ. BOUTROUS, JR. (132099)
DOMINIC J. MESSIHA (204544) Counsel ofR ecord
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. THEANE EvA NGELIS (243570)
2049 Century Park East, 5th Floor ANDREW G. PAPPAS (266409)
Los Angeles, CA 90067 BRADLEY J. HAMBURGER (266916)
Tel: [phone] GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHERLLP
Fax: [phone] South Grand Ave.
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Attorneys for Defendant and Appellant ABM Security Services, Inc.,
formerly d. h. a. American Commercial Security Services, Inc.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................... 1
STATEMENT OF THE CASE ........................................................... 6
1. FACTUAL BACKGROUND ................................................... 6
A. ABM's Operations In California ..................................... 6
B. The Named Plaintiffs ...................................................... 6
C. ABM's Provision Of Rest Breaks ................................... 7
II. PROCEDURAL HISTORy ...........................•........................ 10
A. Plaintiffs' Claims .......................................................... 10
B. Initial Discovery And Class Certification ..................... 10
C. The Trial Court Grants Plaintiffs' Motion For
Summary Adjudication On The Rest Break Claim ....... 12
D. The Parties Engage In Further Discovery ..................... 13
E. The Trial Court Grants Plaintiffs' Motion For
Summary Judgment On The Rest Break Claim
And Awards Damages And Attorneys' Fees ................ 14
STANDARD OF REVIEW ............................................................... 16
ARGUMENT ..................................................................................... 18
1. THE TRIAL COURT'S GRANT OF SUMMARY
JUDGMENT SHOULD BE REVER;;ED BECAUSE
AN ON-CALL REST BREAK IS NOT PER SE
ILLEGAL ................................................................................ 18
A. California Law Allows Greater Restrictions On
Rest Breaks Than On Non-Compensable Time ............ 20
B. The Compensable-Time Cases Cited By The Trial
Court Are Irrelevant To The Adequacy Of The
Rest Breaks ABM Provided .......................................... 24
C. Even If Compensable-Time Analysis Were
Relevant Here, The Trial Court's Decision Was
Erroneous ...................................................................... 27
1. Whether On-Call Time Is Compensable
Depends On A Fact-Specific, Multi-Factor
Analysis ............................................................... 27
2. The Trial Court Failed To Apply The Multi
Factor Analysis For Determining Whether
On-Call Time Is Compensable ........................... 33
II. THE TRIAL COURT'S GRANT OF SUMMARY
JUDGMENT SHOULD ALSO BE REVERSED
BECAUSE TRIABLE ISSUES OF MATERIAL FACT
EXIST ..................................................................................... 36
A. Evidence Shows That ABM Did Not Uniformly
Require All Class Members To Carry Radios Or
Cell Phones And Stay On Call During Rest Breaks ..... 38
B. Plaintiffs Failed To Satisfy Their Burden To Show
That ThereAre No Triable Issues Of Material Fact. .... 42
1. Fred Setayesh's Deposition ................................ 42
2. Sarah Knight's Deposition .................................. 46
3. ABM's Employee Handbook ............................. 48
4. ABM's Purported "Judicial Admissions" ........... 48
5. The DLSE Report On ABM's Rest Break
Exemption Application ....................................... 50
11
III. THE TRIAL COURT'S CERTIFICATION OF THE
REST BREAK CLASS SHOULD BE REVERSED .............. 51
A. The Trial Court Erred In Concluding That The
Community Of Interest Requirement Was Satisfied .... 52
B. Classwide Adjudication Would Violate ABM's
Due Process Right To Present Every Available
Defense .......................................................................... 58
IV. THE TRIAL COURT'S AWARD OF ATTORNEYS'
FEES UNDER CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
SECTION 102l.5 WAS ERRONEOUS AND SHOULD
BE REVERSED ...................................................................... 62
A. Section 102l.5 Fee Shifting Does Not Apply ............... 63
B. Even If It Applies, Section 102l.5's Statutory
Criteria Are Not Satisfied .............................................. 65
CONCLUSION .................................................................................. 67
111
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page(s)
Cases
Agner v. United States
(1985) 8 Cl. Ct. 635 ......................................................................... 23
Aguilar v. Assn. for Retarded Citizens
(1991) 234 Cal.App.3d 21 ......................................................... 25, 26
Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co.
(2001) 25 Ca1.4th 826 ................................................................ 16, 38
Amaral v. Cintas Corp. No.2
(2008) 163 Cal.AppAth 1157 ......................................................... .45
American Surety Co. v. Baldwin
(1932) 287 U.S. 156 ........................................................................ 59
Armour & Co. v. Wantock
(1944) 323 U.S. 125 ........................................................................ 28
Barefield v. Village of Winnetka
(7th Cir. 1996) 81 F.3d 704 ............................................................. 24
Berry v. County ofS onoma
(9th Cir. 1994) 30 F.3d 1174 ........................................................... 32
Blaney v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Hospital Authority
(W.D.N.C. Sept. 16,2011, No. 10-CV-592-FDW-DSC)
2011 WL4351631 ........................................................................... 24
BMW ofN orth America, Inc. v. Gore
(1996) 517 U.S. 559 ........................................................................ 61
Bowman v. Bd. ofP ension Commissioners
(1984) 155 Cal.App.3d 937 ............................................................. 17
Brekke v. City ofB lackduck
(D.Minn. 1997) 984 F.Supp. 1209 .................................................. 33
Bright v. Houston Northwest Medical Center Survivor, Inc.
(5th Cir. 1991) 934 F.2d 671 ........................................................... 33
Page(s)
Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court
(2012) 53 Ca1.4th 1004 ............................................................. passim
Broussard v. Meineke Discount Muffler Shops, Inc.
(4thCir. 1998) 155 F.3d331 ........................................................... 62
Carrera v. Bayer Corp.
(3d Cir. Aug. 21, 2013, No. 12-2621)
--- F.3d ----, 2013 WL 4437225 ...................................................... 59
City ofS an Diego v. Haas
(2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 472 ............................................................ 53
City ofS an Jose v. Superior Court
(1974) 12 Ca1.3d 447 ................................................................. 59,60
Comcast Corp. v. Behrend
(2013) --- U.S. ----, 133 S.Ct. 1426 ................................................. 56
Connerly v. State Personnel Bd.
(2006) 37 Ca1.4th 1169 .................................................................... 18
Conservatorship of Whitley
(2010) 50 Ca1.4th 1206 .................................................................... 65
Dailey v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.
(2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 974 ............................................................ 54
Faulkinbury v. Boyd & Associates, Inc.
(2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 220 ...................................................... 57,58
Fireside Bank v. Superior Court
(2007) 40 Ca1.4th 1069 .................................................................... 52
Giaccio v. Pennsylvania
(1966) 382 U.S. 399 ........................................................................ 61
Gilbert v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.
(Mich. 2004) 685 N.W.2d 391 ........................................................ 62
Gilligan v. City ofE mporia
(lOth Cir. 1993) 986 F.2d 410 ......................................................... 33
v
Page(s)
Gomez v. Lincare
(2009) 173 Cal.AppAth 508 ..................................................... passim
Guz v. Bechtel Nat., Inc.
(2000) 24 Cal.4th 317 ...................................................................... 16
Hale v. Morgan
(1978) 22 Cal.3d 388 ....................................................................... 61
Henry v. Med-Staff, Inc.
(C.D.Cal. July 5,2007, No. SA CV 05-603 DOC ANX)
2007 WL 1998653 ........................................................................... 33
In re Rail Freight Fuel Surcharge Antitrust Litigation
(D.C. Cir. Aug. 9, 2013, No. 12-7085)
--- F.3d ----, 2013 WL 4038561 ...................................................... 56
In re Wells Fargo Home Mortg. Overtime Pay Litigation
(9th Cir. 2009) 571 F.3d 953 ........................................................... 54
Kaczmerak v. Mt. Sinai Medical Center
(E.D.Wise. Feb. 24, 1988, No. 86-C. . 0472) 1988 WL 81633 ......... 23
Kirby v. Immoos Fire Protection, Inc.
(2012) 53 Ca1.4th 1244 .............................................................. 63,64
Knapp v. AT&T Wireless Services, Inc.
(2011) 195 Cal.AppAth 932 ............................................................ 18
Kuhn v. Dept. of Gen. Services
(1994) 22 Cal.AppAth 1627 ............................................................ 17
Lindsey v. Normet
(1972) 405 U.S. 56 .......................................................................... 59
Lopez v. Brown
(2013) 217 Cal.AppAth 1114 .......................................................... 53
Lyons v. Chinese Hospital Assn.
(2006) 136 Cal.AppAth 1331 .......................................................... 66
Mendiola v. CPS Security Solutions, Inc.
(2013) 217 Cal.AppAth 851 .......................................... 28, 31, 32, 34
VI
Page(s)
Morrillon v. Royal Packing Co.
(2000) 22 Cal.4th 575 ................................................................ 24, 25
Murphy v. Kenneth Cole Productions, Inc.
(2007) 40 Cal.4th 10 94 .................................................................... 61
Owens v. Local No. 169, Assn. of Western Pulp & Paper Workers
(9th Cir. 1992) 971 F.2d 347 ..................................................... 28,32
Pacific Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. State Bd. ofE qualization
(1996) 41 Cal.App.4th 1153 ............................................................ 66
Reid v. Google, Inc.
(2010) 50 Cal.4th 512 ...................................................................... 41
Roby v. McKesson Corp.
(2010) 47 Cal.4th 686 ...................................................................... 54
Roddenberry v. Roddenberry
(1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 634 .............................................................. 17
Roy v. County ofL exington
(4th Cir. 1998) 141 F.3d 533 ........................................................... 24
Rutfin v. Prime Succession
(6th Cir. 2000) 220 F.3d 737 ........................................................... 33
Satrap v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co.
(1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 72 ................................................................ 66
Sav-On Drug Stores, Inc. v. Superior Court
(2004) 34 Cal.4th 319 ...................................................................... 17
Seymore v. Metson Marine, Inc.
(2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 361. ......................................... 28, 31, 34, 35
Temple v. Guardsmark (N.D.Cal. Feb. 22, 2011)
2011 WL 723611 ............................................................................. 22
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes
(2011) --- U.S. -----, 131 S.Ct. 2541 ........................................ passim
Walsh v. IKON Office Solutions, Inc. (2007)
148 Cal.App.4th 1440 ..................................................................... 54
va
Page(s)
Wang v. Chinese Daily News, Inc.
(9th Cir. Sept. 3,2013, Nos. 08-55483, 08-56740)
--- F.3d ----, 2013 WL 4712728 ................................................ 55, 57
White v. Salvation Army
(Wash. Ct. App. 2003) 75 P.3d 990 ................................................ 22
Statutes
Code Civ. Proc., § 382 ........................................................................ 52
Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (c) ...................................................... 16
Evid. Code, § 403 ............................................................................... 41
Lab. Code, § 2699, subd. (g)( 1) .......................................................... 65
Regulations
Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 11040, subd. (11)(A) .................................. 23
Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 11040, subd. (12)(A) .................................. 20
Cal. Code. Regs., tit. 8, § 11040, subd. (13)(B) ................................. 22
Other Authorities
Dept. Industrial Relations,
DLSE Enforcement Policies & Interpretations Manual
(June 2002 rev.) § 47.5.5 ................................................................. 30
Dept. Industrial Relations,
DLSE Opn. Letter No. 1993.03.31 (Mar. 31, 1993) ....................... 29
Dept. Industrial Relations,
DLSE Opn. Letter No. 1994.02.16 (Feb. 16, 1994) .. ~ ..................... 29
Dept. Industrial Relations,
DLSE Opn. Letter No. 1998.12.28 (Dec. 28, 1998) ....................... 29
Dept. Industrial Relations,
DLSE Opn. Letter No. 2002.01.28 (Jan. 28, 2002) ........................ 22
Richard A. Nagareda,
Class Certification in the Age ofA ggregate Proof
(2009) 84 N.Y.U. L.Rev. 97, 131 ................................................ 5, 55
V 111