Amiri v. Cox Communications California, LLC
272 F. Supp. 3d 1187
C.D. Cal.2017Background
- Plaintiff Faramarz Amiri, a former Fiber Tech in Cox Communications’ Orange County market (worked 2006–2015), sued asserting eight wage-and-hour causes of action, including representative PAGA penalties on behalf of ~1,000 "aggrieved employees."
- Allegations focus on missed meal and rest breaks, unpaid overtime/double-time (including allegedly uncompensated on-call waiting time and off-the-clock work), and on-call restrictions (hotel stays, geographic limits, response deadlines).
- Cox operates in three California markets (San Diego, Orange County, Santa Barbara) with varied local management, differing procedures by market and job type, and written policies that on their face comply with California law and prohibit off-the-clock work.
- Plaintiff’s personal testimony describes difficulty taking breaks and restrictive on-call conditions; other employees and Cox declarations state different experiences (many employees regularly took breaks and some job categories were never on-call).
- Defendant moved under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f) to strike the PAGA representative claims as unmanageable; the Court granted the motion, finding individualized inquiries would predominate and make a representative trial unmanageable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether PAGA representative claims may proceed absent a plan showing manageability | Amiri: no trial-plan requirement; representative PAGA suit permissible | Cox: the asserted PAGA class is unmanageable — individualized inquiries predominate; plaintiff must show manageable method to try representative claims | Court: granted motion to strike PAGA representative claims as unmanageable; plaintiff must amend complaint to proceed individually |
| Meal and rest break liability under PAGA | Amiri: systemic failure to provide meal/rest breaks across field employees | Cox: written policies complied with law; employees’ experiences vary by job/market so no common practice forcing missed breaks | Court: strikes representative meal/rest claims — proving violations would require employee-by-employee inquiries (no widespread policy shown) |
| On-call waiting time / unpaid overtime / off-the-clock claims under PAGA | Amiri: on-call restrictions (hotel requirement, response window, inability to run errands) and off-the-clock work made on-call time compensable and created unpaid overtime across employees | Cox: on-call rules and compensation vary by market/job; many employees had different restrictions or none; Cox prohibits off-the-clock work and trains employees accordingly | Court: strikes representative on-call and overtime claims — liability depends on individualized facts (frequency of calls, restrictions, whether employee actually worked off-clock, manager knowledge) |
| Derivative claims (wage statements, recordkeeping, waiting-time penalties, UCL) asserted via PAGA | Amiri: derivative of underlying wage/break violations | Cox: because underlying PAGA claims are unmanageable and individualized, derivative claims likewise cannot be tried on a representative basis | Court: strikes these PAGA derivative claims as unmanageable as well |
Key Cases Cited
- Brinker Rest. Corp. v. Superior Court, 53 Cal.4th 1004 (2012) (employer must relieve employee of all duty to "provide" meal breaks; policies can create presumption against off-the-clock work)
- Gomez v. Lincare, Inc., 173 Cal.App.4th 508 (2009) (on-call waiting time compensability turns on whether time is primarily for employer’s benefit and on multiple factual factors)
- Owens v. Local No. 169, Ass’n of W. Pulp & Paper Workers, 971 F.2d 347 (9th Cir. 1992) (nonexhaustive factors for whether on-call waiting time is compensable)
- Arias v. Superior Court, 46 Cal.4th 969 (2009) (PAGA permits aggrieved employees to recover civil penalties on behalf of the state; liability based on underlying Labor Code violations)
- Sidney-Vinstein v. A.H. Robins Co., 697 F.2d 880 (9th Cir. 1983) (Rule 12(f) motions aim to avoid expenditure on spurious issues but are disfavored)