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.

Jamie Morse, et al v. Marie Callender Pie Shops

May 12, 2011

JAMIE MORSE, ET AL.,
PLAINTIFFS,
v.
MARIE CALLENDER PIE SHOPS, INC., ET AL.,
DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable Janis L. Sammartino United States District Judge

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION (Doc. Nos. 48, 54, & 55.)

Presently before the Court is Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Plaintiffs seek to certify five claims related to overtime pay and rest and meal periods. The class is defined as all those individuals employed by Defendants Marie Callender Pie Shop, Inc. and Perkins & Marie Callender's Inc. who were classified as exempt and worked in a position with the title "Assistant Manager" during the period June 15, 2005 to July 26, 2009. After consideration, the Court DENIES WITH PREJUDICE Plaintiffs' motion because Plaintiffs-proceeding under Rule 23(b)(3)-fail to show that questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over questions affecting only individuals.

BACKGROUND

Between June15, 2005 and July 26, 2009, Defendants owned and operated over sixty restaurants in California. (Doc. No. 52 at 2.) Each plaintiff was employed by Defendants as an "Assistant Manager." (Doc. No. 38 (Consol. Compl.) at 5--6.)

In California, an employer must pay overtime wages for work performed in excess of eight hours in one day or forty hours in one week. Cal. Labor Code § 510(a). An employer must also provide an employee with a thirty-minute meal period in each five-hour work period and a ten-minute rest period for each four hours worked. Cal. Code Regs. tit. 8, § 11050(11)(A), (12)(A). If the employer fails to provide meal or rest periods, the employer must pay one additional hour of pay for each work day that the meal or rest period was not provided. Cal. Lab. Code § 226.7(b). Such rules do not apply, however, to a person employed in an executive or administrative capacity.

An employee subject to the executive exemption is one:

(a) Whose duties and responsibilities involve the management of the enterprise in which he or she is employed or of a customarily recognized department or subdivision thereof; and

(b) Who customarily and regularly directs the work of two or more other employees therein; and

(c) Who has the authority to hire or fire other employees or whose suggestions and recommendations as to the hiring or firing and as to the advancement and promotion or any other change of status of other employees will be given particular weight; and

(d) Who customarily and regularly exercises discretion and independent judgment; and

(e) Who is primarily engaged in duties which meet the test of the exemption . . . .

(f) Such an employee must also earn a monthly salary equivalent to no less than two (2) times the state minimum wage for full-time employment . . . . Cal. Code Regs. tit. 8, § 11050(1)(B)(1) (emphasis added).

An employee subject to the administrative ...


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.