United States District Court, E.D. California
JODI SCOTT-GEORGE, individually and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
PVH CORP., a Delaware corporation, and DOES 1 through 50 inclusive, Defendant.
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO RECONSIDER
Troy
L. Nurley United States District Judge
This
matter is before the Court pursuant to Defendant PVH
Corp.’s (hereafter, “Defendant”) Motion to
Reconsider this Court’s November 20, 2015, Class
Certification Order. (Def.’s Mot. to Recon., ECF No.
121.) Plaintiffs Jodi Scott-George and Melissa Wiggs on
behalf of the certified class (hereafter,
“Plaintiffs”) have filed an Opposition
(Pl.s’ Opp’n., ECF No. 122), to which Defendant
has filed a Reply (Def.’s Rep., ECF No. 123). The Court
has carefully considered the arguments raised by the
parties’ briefing. For the reasons set forth below,
Defendant’s Motion to Reconsider is DENIED.
I.FACTUAL
AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Defendant’s
basis for its Motion for Reconsideration involves other
recent class action settlements that may overlap with the
instant class action. As such, the Court provides background
information as to the related class actions below.
A.
Chavez Class Action Settlement
In
March of 2013, Plaintiff Jesse Chavez represented a class
action against PVH Corp. (the same Defendant in the instant
case) in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California. See Chavez, No.
5:15-CV-01797. The Chavez action alleged, among
other things, that PVH Corp. failed to pay all wages under
Labor Code Section 212 due to its payment of wages via
paycards (“Paycard Claim”) and to provide
complaint wage statements under Labor Code Section 226(a)
(“Wage Statement Claim”). (ECF No. 121 at 2.)
Chavez settled on January 21, 2015. The Settlement
Agreement stated that those who failed to opt out would
release “all claims, rights, demands, liabilities, and
causes of action, whether in law or equity, arising from, or
related to the facts occurring during the Settlement Class
Period.” (ECF No. 122-1 at 15.) This settlement
agreement defined the Settlement Class as “all current
and former employees who worked for Defendant in California
during any portion of the period from March 20, 2009 through
July 17, 2014.” (ECF No. 122-1 at 11.) A declaration by
the class administrator for Chavez stated that five
people opted out of the settlement, including the two Named
Plaintiffs in this case as well as those in the
Lapan case.[1]
B.
Lapan Class Action Settlement
In July
of 2014, Plaintiff Jeffrey Lapan represented a class action
against PVH Corp. in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California. See Lapan, No.
5:13- CV-05006. The Lapan case specifically
addressed PVH Corp.’s alleged noncompliant use of
paycards and settled on December 18, 2015. (ECF No. 122 at
3.) Similar to the Chavez agreement, the
Lapan agreement stated that those who failed to opt
out released “all claims, rights, demands, liabilities,
and causes of action, whether in law or equity, arising from,
or related to the facts occurring during the Class
Period.” (ECF No. 122-1 at 82.) The settlement
agreement stated that the California Settlement Class
included all “current and former employees who worked
for Defendant in California from July 17, 2014, through the
date of preliminary approval [August 7, 2015]… and who
affirmatively opted out of the settlement in Chavez v.
PVH Corp.” (ECF No. 122-1 at 76.) A
declaration by the class administrator for Lapan
stated that eight people opted out of the settlement,
including only one from the California Class, and did not
include the named plaintiffs in this case.[2]
C.
Scott-George Class Action (The Instant Class Action)
In
January of 2013, Plaintiff Jodi Scott-George filed the
initial complaint in this action against PVH Corp. for
violations of various provisions of the California Labor
Code. Plaintiff Class Members are retail store nonexempt
employees of Defendant, an international clothing retailer.
At issue is the certification of Subclass IV (“Paycard
Subclass”) and Subclass VIII (“Wage Statement
Subclass”). Defendant seeks to decertify the following
classes:
(4) Paycard Subclass: All nonexempt employees who received
their earned wages via the Money Network paycard system while
working for Defendant in California from March 20, 2009 to
the present, and
(8) Wage Statement Subclass: All nonexempt employees who
received non-compliant wage statements while working for
Defendant in California from March 20, 2009 to the present.
(Mem. of P&A in Supp’t of Mot. for Class Cert., ECF
No. 55-1 at 1.) Plaintiff Jodi Scott-George is the Class
Representative for subclass (1), (2), (5), (6) and (7).
Plaintiff Melissa Wiggs is the Class Representative for the
subclass (3), (4) and (8). The classes currently encompass
all nonexempt employees of PVH Corporation (which owns Van
Heusen; and owned but sold G. H. Bass). (ECF No. 55-1 at 2.)
II.
...