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.

Perfecto Espinoza and Cesar Pedroza, Individually and On Behalf of All v. Domino's Pizza

November 7, 2012

PERFECTO ESPINOZA AND CESAR PEDROZA, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, PLAINTIFF,
v.
DOMINO'S PIZZA, LLC, A MICHIGAN LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY; DOMINO'S PIZZA DISTRIBUTION, LLC, A MICHIGAN LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY; AND DOES 1-100, INCLUSIVE, DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: VIRGINIA A. Phillips United States District Judge

ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES [Motion filed on April 26, 2012]

Before the Court is an unopposed Motion for Attorneys' Fees ("Motion") filed by Plaintiff Class Counsel. In addition, Plaintiffs seek an incentive reward for the two Named Plaintiffs. After considering the papers in support of the Motion, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs' Motion.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Factual Background

Plaintiffs are current and former employees of Defendant Domino's Pizza, LLC ("Defendant"), who worked as drivers or assistant drivers at Defendant's distribution center in Hayward, California or Ontario, California. (Doc. No. 35. (First Am. Compl. ("FAC")) ¶¶ 18-19.) Named Plaintiff Perfecto Espinoza is a former truck driver for Defendant, and Named Plaintiff Cesar Pedroza is an assistant truck driver for Defendant. (FAC ¶ 5.) Named Plaintiffs allege that Defendant's delivery schedule prevented them from taking their required thirty-minute meal periods. (FAC ¶ 22.) Further, because of the monitoring technology in the trucks, Defendant knew that Plaintiffs were not taking their required meal periods. (FAC ¶¶ 23-27.)

B. Procedural Background

On October 30, 2007, Plaintiffs filed a Complaint on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated in the California Superior Court for the County of San Bernardino. (Doc. No. 1.) Defendant removed the action to this Court on December 5, 2007, on the basis of diversity jurisdiction and the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA"), codified in relevant part at 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2). (Id.)

On December 2, 2008, Plaintiffs filed their FAC, asserting five claims for relief:

1. Failure to provide timely meal periods, in violation of California Labor Code §§ 226.7, 512 and Industrial Welfare Commission ("IWC") Wage Order No. 9;

2. Failure to provide accurate, itemized wage statements, in violation of California Labor Code §§ 226, 226.3;

3. Failure to pay timely wages due at the time an employee is discharged, in violation of California Labor Code §§ 201-203;

4. Unpaid wages, in violation of California Labor Code §§ 204, 218, 1194, 1194.2, 1197, 1198 and IWC Wage Order No. 9; and

5. Unfair business practices, in violation of California Business and Professions Code § 17200, et seq.

On October 20, 2008, Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify the class, which the Court granted on February 18, 2009 ("February 18 Order"). (Doc. Nos. 25, 54.) The ...


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.