United States District Court, E.D. California
SANDY BELL, MARTIN GAMA, and MICHAEL GAMA, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated, and as aggrieved employees pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act “PAGA”, Plaintiffs,
HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC., a Delaware corporation; JOHN BROOKS, an individual; and DOES 1-10 inclusive, Defendants.
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS'SUCCESSIVE MOTION FOR
A. MENDEZ, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Bell, Martin Gama, and Michael Henry
(“Plaintiffs”) allege Defendants-Home Depot,
U.S.A. and John Brooks, the regional manager for the Home
Depot stores where Plaintiffs worked-violated California law
by designing Home Depot's workday to evade overtime
obligations. Since this case began, Defendants have filed
four motions for summary judgment. Plaintiffs argue the Court
should not adjudicate Defendants' most-recent motion
because it raises arguments that either have already been
adjudicated or are legally baseless. The Court agrees. For
the reasons discussed below, the Court denies Defendants'
successive motion for summary judgment.
2012, Sandy Bell and Martin Gama brought a wage-and-hour
class action in state court, alleging Defendants violated
several provisions of the California Labor Code. Compl., ECF
No. 2-3. Defendants removed the suit this Court, where it was
ultimately consolidated with Henry v. Home Depot,
U.S.A., a case transferred from the Northern District of
California. See ECF No. 136.
the past six years, Defendants have filed four motions for
summary judgment. In September 2015, before Bell and
Henry's cases were consolidated, Defendants filed a
motion for summary judgment in Henry's case. See,
Henry v. Home Depot, U.S.A., No.
3:14-cv-04858-JST at ECF No. 29. Henry filed suit in the
Northern District of California, alleging Defendants designed
Home Depot's workday to avoid overtime obligations.
Id. at ECF No. 1-2. Judge Tigar denied
Defendants' motion for summary judgment on this claim,
finding they failed to show, as a matter of law, that Home
Depot's workday was not designed to evade overtime
compensation. Henry v. Home Depot, U.S.A., No.
14-cv-04858-JST, 2016 WL 39719, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 4,
next month, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment in
Bell's case. ECF No. 72. This Court granted
Defendants' motion in all but one respect. Largely
adopting the reasoning set forth in Judge Tigar's
decision, this Court denied Defendants' motion on
Plaintiffs' claim that Home Depot's workday was
designed to evade overtime compensation. See Transcript for
February 23, 2016 Hearing at 28:7-24, ECF No. 98.
the Court consolidated Bell and Henry's cases, Defendants
filed a motion for summary adjudication on Plaintiffs'
Section 203 and 226 claims. May 2017 Mot. for Summ. J., ECF
No. 146. Section 203 and 226 levy penalties against employers
who “willfully” fail to pay final wages (section
203) or “knowingly and intentionally” fail to
provide proper wage statements (section 226). This Court
granted Defendants' motion for summary adjudication in
full. ECF No. 158.
this series of motions, Plaintiffs' only remaining claim
is that Defendants designed the Home Depot workday to evade
overtime obligations. The current motion for summary
judgment, ECF No. 173, maintains Defendants are entitled to
judgment on that claim.
Rule of Civil Procedure 56 does not limit the number of
motions for summary judgment a party may file.
Hoffman v. Tonnemacher, 593 F.3d 908, 911
(9th Cir. 2010). Indeed allowing a party to file a successive
motion for summary judgment is sometimes “logical and
 fosters the just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of
suits.” Id. at 911 (citing Fed. R. Civ. Proc.
1). This is particularly true when a successive motion is
based on an “expanded factual record.”
Id. Even so, courts must be “conscious of the
potential for abuse of the procedure.” Id. For
this reason, “district courts retain discretion to weed
out frivolous or simply repetitive motions.”
argue the Court should adjudicate its successive motion for
summary judgment because the motion (1) is based on an
expanded record; and (2) proffers a new legal theory that
would resolve the case in its entirety. Mot. at 6-7.
Plaintiffs disagree, arguing the motion is premised on a
baseless legal theory and facts ...