Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

In re Taco Bell Wage and Hour Actions

July 2, 2009

IN RE TACO BELL WAGE AND HOUR ACTIONS,


The opinion of the court was delivered by: Oliver W. Wanger United States District Judge

AMENDED SCHEDULING CONFERENCE ORDER

Discovery Cut-Off re Whether Yum! Brands, Inc.

Defendant: 10/26/09 is a Proper Party

Deadline re Whether Yum! Dispositive Motion Filing

Party Defendant: 11/30/09 Brands, Inc. is a Proper

Discovery Cut-Off: 6/24/10 Class Certification

Motions re Class Deadline: 8/26/10 Certification Filing

Opposition re Class Deadline: 10/26/10 Certification Filing

Certification Filing Replies re Class Deadline: 12/6/10

Hearing re Class 11:00 Ctrm. 3 Certification: 1/10/11

I. Date of Scheduling Conference.

June 25, 2009.

III. Cooperation Between Interim Lead Counsel and Liaison Counsel.

1. Interim Lead Counsel and Liaison Counsel for Naranjo are directed to meet and confer to reach resolution on issues of their cooperation and administration and handling of their respective responsibilities in this litigation. In the event counsel are unable to agree on the terms and conditions of their respective roles on or before August 10, 2009, Liaison Counsel for Naranjo may file any motion concerning cooperation and administrative issues between Interim Lead Counsel and Liaison Counsel.

IV. Summary of Pleadings

Plaintiffs' Statement

1. On May 19, 2009, the Court granted Defendants' motions for consolidation of the Medlock, Hardiman, Leyva, and Naranjo Actions for all purposes through trial and, on June 9, 2009, issued a Pretrial Order Regarding Consolidation of Pending Actions and Appointment of Initiative Legal Group LLP as Interim Lead Counsel ("Pretrial Order"), which directed Plaintiffs to file a Consolidated Complaint on or before June 30, 2009.

2. Plaintiffs will be filing a Consolidated Complaint, which alleges the following claims against Taco Bell Corp. and/or Taco Bell of America, Inc. on behalf of a putative class of non-exempt or hourly-paid employees:

a. That non-exempt or hourly-paid employees of Taco Bell Corp. and/or Taco Bell of America, Inc. in the State of California from September 7, 2003, until the resolution of this lawsuit were not paid proper wages.

b. That non-exempt or hourly-paid employees of Taco Bell Corp. and/or Taco Bell of America, Inc. in the State of California from September 7, 2003 until the resolution of this lawsuit were not paid proper overtime wages.

c. That non-exempt or hourly-paid employees of Taco Bell Corp. and/or Taco Bell of America, Inc. in the State of California from September 7, 2003 until the resolution of this lawsuit were not paid proper minimum wages.

d. That non-exempt or hourly-paid employees of Taco Bell Corp. and/or Taco Bell of America, Inc. in the State of California from September 7, 2003 until the resolution of this lawsuit missed meal periods and were not paid proper wages in lieu thereof.

e. That non-exempt or hourly-paid employees of Taco Bell Corp. and/or Taco Bell of America, Inc. in the State of California from September 7, 2003 until the resolution of this lawsuit missed rest periods and were not paid proper wages in lieu thereof.

f. That non-exempt or hourly-paid employees of Taco Bell Corp. and/or Taco Bell of America, Inc. in the State of California were provided inaccurate wage statements from September 7, 2006 until the resolution of this lawsuit.

g. That non-exempt or hourly-paid employees of Taco Bell Corp. and/or Taco Bell of America, Inc. in the State of California incurred business-related expenses and costs that were not reimbursed from September 7, 2003 until the resolution of this lawsuit.

h. That exempt or hourly-paid employees of Taco Bell Corp. and/or Taco Bell of America, Inc. in the State of California were not paid all vested accrued vacation wages (including, but not limited to, vacation pay, personal day pay, personal holiday pay, and/or floating holiday pay) at the end of their employment from November 5, 2004 until the resolution of this lawsuit.

i. That non-exempt or hourly-paid employees of Taco Bell Corp. and/or Taco Bell of America, Inc. in the State of California were not timely tendered their wages upon termination of employment from September 7, 2004 until the resolution of this lawsuit.

j. That Defendants have refused to secure the payment of workers compensation benefits to Plaintiff Leyva. Instead, Defendants deliberately, intentionally, and wrongfully fired Plaintiff Levya without just cause, ending her employment on July 26, 2007.

3. On behalf of the putative class members, Plaintiffs seek to recover unpaid compensation and unlawfully withheld wages, including the interest thereon, as well as damages, and statutory penalties for the applicable limitations period. Plaintiffs further seek attorneys' fees and costs.

4. Additionally, Plaintiff Hardiman seeks penalties under the California Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, California Labor Code §§ 2699, et seq. ("PAGA"), for the applicable limitations period for violations of California Labor Code §§ 201, 202, 203, 204, 221, 226(a), 226.7, 510, 512, 1198, 2800 and 2802.

Plaintiffs' Statement If the Threshold Issue of Yum! Brands, Inc.'s Liability is Met

5. Plaintiffs' Consolidated Complaint will also allege claims against Yum! Brands, Inc. on behalf of a putative class of non-exempt or hourly-paid employees. Defendants are expected to file a motion on the threshold issue of whether Yum! Brands, Inc. is a proper named defendant in the consolidated actions. If Plaintiffs prevail on the issue of Yum! Brands, Inc.'s liability, the following additional claims will be at issue:

k. That non-exempt or hourly paid employees of Yum! Brands, Inc. in the State of California from November 5, 2004 until the resolution of this lawsuit were not paid proper minimum wages.

l. That non-exempt or hourly-paid employees of Yum! Brands, Inc. in the State of California from November 5, 2004 until the resolution of this lawsuit were not paid proper overtime wages.

m. That non-exempt or hourly-paid employees of Yum! Brands, Inc. in the State of California were provided inaccurate wage statements from November 5, 2007 until the resolution of this lawsuit.

n. That non-exempt or hourly-paid employees of Yum! Brands, Inc. in the State of California incurred business-related expenses and costs that were not reimbursed from November 5, 2004 until the resolution of this lawsuit.

o. That exempt or hourly-paid employees of Taco Bell Corp., Taco Bell of America, Inc., and/or Yum! Brands, Inc. in the State of California were not paid all vested accrued vacation wages (including, but not limited to, vacation pay, personal day pay, personal holiday pay, and/or floating holiday pay) at the end of their employment from November 5, 2004 until the resolution of this lawsuit.

p. That non-exempt or hourly-paid employees of Yum! Brands, Inc. in the State of California were not timely tendered their wages upon termination of employment from November 5, 2005 until the resolution of this lawsuit.

6. On behalf of the putative class members, Plaintiffs seek to recover unpaid compensation and unlawfully withheld wages, including the interest thereon, as well as damages, and statutory penalties for the applicable limitations period. Plaintiffs further seek attorneys' fees and costs.

Defendants' Statement

1. Defendants Taco Bell or Taco Bell of America employed Plaintiffs and other persons as non-exempt or hourly paid restaurant employees in California. Although Plaintiffs have not yet filed their Consolidated Complaint and thus, Defendants have not yet responded, Defendants deny any and all allegations that Plaintiffs assert above and have previously asserted in each individual action prior to consolidation. Specifically, Defendants deny that Plaintiffs or any other putative class member are entitled to any type of relief in this action, including, without limitation, unpaid compensation, unreimbursed business expenses, wages and interest thereon, damages, statutory penalties, and penalties under PAGA. Defendants deny that Plaintiffs are entitled to recover attorneys' fees and costs and any other relief they seek from the Court.

2. Defendants also deny that Plaintiff Leyva was wrongfully terminated, and they deny that Plaintiff Leyva is entitled to any type of relief for her alleged wrongful termination claim. Defendants also believe that Plaintiff Leyva has no basis for including in the Consolidated Complaint a cause of action to secure the payment of workers' compensation benefits to her, as such a cause of action was not asserted in her complaint filed in her individual action.

Defendants' Statement Regarding the Threshold Issue of Whether Yum and Its "Retail Restaurant Subsidiaries" are Integrated Enterprises.

3. Plaintiffs assert that they will claim in their Consolidated Complaint that Yum and "Yum's retail restaurant subsidiaries" are integrated enterprises making Yum the employer of individuals working in "Yum's retail restaurant subsidiaries." Yum plans to file a motion for summary judgment on this issue as soon as possible which, if granted, will dispose of all claims against Yum and any Yum retail restaurant subsidiaries not specifically named in the Consolidated Complaint.

4. Yum denies that it and its retail restaurant subsidiaries are integrated enterprises.

V. Orders Re Amendments To ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.