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.

Trevino v. Golden State FC LLC

United States District Court, E.D. California

June 27, 2019

JUAN TREVINO, CHRISTOPHER WARD, LINDA QUINTEROS, ROMEO PALMA, BRITTANY HAGMAN, ALBERTO GIANINI, and JUAN C. AVALOS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
v.
GOLDEN STATE FC, LLC, a Delaware Corporation; AMAZON.COM INC., a Delaware Corporation; AMAZON FULFILLMENT SERVICES, INC., a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants.

          ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO STAY PROCEEDINGS PENDING THE SIXTH CIRCUIT'S DECISION IN SALDANA

         This matter is before the court on defendants' motions to stay in three cases: (1) Trevino v. Golden State FC LLC, 1:18-cv-00120-DAD-BAM, Doc. No. 40-1 (“Trevino”); (2) Avalos v. Amazon.com LLC and Golden State FC LLC, 1:18-cv-00567-DAD-BAM (“Avalos”), Doc. No. 41-1; (3) Hagman et al v. Amazon Fulfillment Services, Inc., et al, 1:18-cv-01176-DAD-BAM (“Hagman”), Doc. No. 35. On February 28, 2019, these three cases and two other cases were consolidated with Trevino v. Golden State FC LLC et. al, 1:18-cv-00120-DAD-BAM (“Consolidated Action”) being designated as the lead case. (See Consolidated Action, Doc. No. 45.)

         A hearing on the motions to stay was held on November 20, 2018. Attorney Shawn Westrick appeared telephonically on behalf of the Hagman plaintiffs, attorneys Peter Dion-Kindem and Lonnie Blanchard appeared telephonically on behalf of the Trevino plaintiffs, and attorney Isandra Fernandez appeared telephonically on behalf of the Avalos plaintiffs. Attorneys Barbara Miller and Joel Purles appeared telephonically on behalf of moving party defendants Amazon Fulfillment Services, Inc. and Golden State FC LLC. The court has considered the parties' briefs and oral arguments. For the reasons stated below, the court will deny defendants' motion to stay.

         FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

         Amazon.com, Inc. (“Amazon.com”) is a Delaware corporation and online retailer. (See Consolidated Action, Doc. No. 65 (“Consolidated Compl.”) at ¶ 15.) Amazon Fulfillment Services, Inc. is purportedly a wholly-owned subsidiary of Amazon.com. (Id. at ¶ 16.) Golden State FC, LLC (“Golden State”) is a Delaware corporation that is purportedly a wholly-owned subsidiary of Amazon Fulfillment Services, Inc. (Id.) Golden State was purportedly created to build and operate fulfillment centers for Amazon.com, including at least nine that are in operation in California. (Id. at ¶ 17.) Plaintiffs in this Consolidated Action are non-exempt employees of defendants in California, alleging violations of the California Labor Code and applicable Wage Order provisions. (See Id. at ¶¶ 1-5.)

         A. Allison Action

         On September 6, 2013, ten former warehouse employees filed a class action lawsuit, Allison v. Amazon.com, Inc., W.D. Wash. No. 13-cv-01612-RSL (“Allison”), alleging that defendants Amazon.com, Inc. and Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc. violated federal and state law by failing to compensate workers at Amazon fulfillment centers for time spent in security screening. (See Hagman, Doc. No. 35-1 at 7.) The Allison plaintiffs brought claims based on defendants' alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), asserting that defendants did not compensate their hourly warehouse workers for time spent passing through a security checkpoint before taking lunch and again at the end of each shift. (Id.) Additionally, the Allison plaintiffs brought two class claims under California law: 1) failure to pay overtime and meal break violations; 2) unlawful business practices in violation of California Business & Professions Code § 17200. (Id.)

         B. Saldana Action

         On December 19, 2013, four additional former warehouse employees filed a similar class action lawsuit in the Los Angeles County Superior Court, Saldana v. Amazon.com, LLC, No. 14-cv-01545-R-VBK (“Saldana”), which was subsequently removed to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on February 28, 2014. (See Hagman, Doc. No. 35-1 at 8.) As in Allison, the Saldana plaintiffs allege that defendants Amazon.com, LLC; Golden State FC LLC; SMX, LLC; and Staff Management, LLC violated California law by requiring employees at California fulfilment centers to submit to individual security searches when clocking out for meal periods and at the end of the day. (See Id. at 8-9.) The Saldana plaintiffs allege that this practice prevented warehouse workers from being paid for all the hours that they worked. (Id.)

         The Saldana plaintiffs asserted eight causes of action under California law: 1) failure to pay hourly wages or, alternatively minimum wages; 2) failure to pay overtime wages; 3) failure to provide meal periods or compensation in lieu thereof; 4) failure to provide rest periods or compensation in lieu thereof; 5) failure to timely pay wages due at termination; 6) failure to provide itemized employee wage statements; 7) violation of the Unfair Competition Law; 8) violation of the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (“PAGA”). (Id.)

         C. Amazon Security Screening MDL Proceedings

         On February 19, 2014, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (“J.P.M.L.”) issued an order centralizing five actions pending in different district courts across the country, including the Allison action, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky (the “MDL court”). (Id.) In each of the five actions the plaintiffs alleged that Amazon and staffing agencies violated federal and state wage and hour laws by not compensating employees for time spent passing through security screening at Amazon's fulfillment centers. See In re Amazon.com, Inc., Fulfillment Center Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and Wage and Hour Litigation, 999 F.Supp.2d 1375, 1377 (J.P.M.L. 2014). The J.P.M.L. concluded that centralization of the five actions was warranted “[g]iven the overlap in the FLSA collective action certification issues and the Rule 23 proposed classes . . ..” Id. at 1376.

         On April 1, 2014, the Saldana case was also transferred to the MDL court for coordinated pretrial proceedings. (See Hagman, Doc. No. 35-2 at 2.) On March 19, 2015, following the Supreme Court's decision in Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc. v. Busk, U.S., 135 S.Ct. 513, 519 (2014), in which the court held that the time spent passing through security at Amazon Fulfillment Centers was not compensable under the FLSA, the Allison plaintiffs dismissed all of their claims except the California state law claims. (Hagman, Doc. No. 35-1 at 9.) After discovery commenced in Allison and Saldana in the Western District of Kentucky, the Saldana plaintiffs and one of the defendants in that action, SMX LLC, reached a settlement, which released the wage and hour claims of all but one plaintiff, Khadijah Robertson, and dismissed all defendants except for Amazon.com, LLC and Golden State.[1] (Id.) Plaintiff Robertson, however, continued to pursue class-wide claims against Amazon.com, LLC and Golden State in that action. (Id.)

         On June 7, 2016 and prior to the filing of any class certification motion, defendants Amazon.com, LLC and Golden State FC, LLC filed a motion for summary judgment as to all remaining causes of action in Saldana. (Id.). On June 20, 2017, the MDL court found that plaintiff Robertson had failed to present evidence showing that there are “hours worked” for which she was not paid and, accordingly, granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants in that case. In re Amazon.com, Inc., Fulfillment Ctr. Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) & Wage & Hour Litig., No. 3:14-CV-290-DJH, 2017 WL 2662607, at *1 (W.D. Ky. June 20, 2017). The MDL court found that the undisputed evidence before it on summary judgment established that “Amazon employees could choose to avoid any security-related delay by leaving personal items outside the secure area.” Id. at *3.

         Plaintiff Robertson appealed the MDL court's decision granting summary judgment in favor of defendants to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals on July 10, 2017. (See Hagman, Doc. No. 35-1 at 10.) The Sixth Circuit held oral arguments on June 14, 2018, but no decision on appeal has yet been rendered. (Id.) On July 20, 2018, the Allison parties jointly moved to stay Allison until a decision was issued on the Saldana appeal. (Hagman, Doc. No. 35-1 at 12.) On July 24, 2018, the MDL court granted the parties' request and stayed Allison pending resolution of Saldana. (Id.)

         D. 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.