Cabardo v. Patacsil, 248 F. Supp. 3d 1002

Background

Plaintiffs are former live-in caregivers at Pa-tacsil Care Homes who were paid a salary and lived/worked onsite. They sued under the FLSA and California wage-and-hour laws, including Labor Code § 226 and PAGA.
Plaintiffs' sixth claim alleges Defendants failed to provide wage statements showing total hours worked as required by Cal. Lab. Code § 226(a)(2). The tenth claim seeks PAGA civil penalties based on the § 226 violations.
Relevant undisputed facts: Defendants paid Plaintiffs on a salaried basis and most wage statements either omitted hours entirely or uniformly listed “86.67” hours; Defendants do not assert those entries are accurate and attribute them to a bank error.
Defendants asserted exemptions (executive/administrative/professional) via employer-employee agreements labeling Plaintiffs as managers, but introduced no documentary evidence of actual job duties supporting an exemption.
Plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment on the § 226 claim and entitlement to PAGA penalties; the Court granted the motion in part, awarding statutory § 226 penalties to one plaintiff and recognizing entitlement to PAGA penalties (amount to be determined).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Plaintiffs were exempt from minimum wage/overtime (so § 226(a)(2) inapplicable)	Plaintiffs not exempt; no record evidence supports an exemption	Defendants point to signed agreements/designations (managers) arguing exemptions	Held Plaintiffs were not exempt; employer bears burden to prove exemption and mere job titles/agreements insufficient without evidence of actual duties
Whether Defendants violated Cal. Lab. Code § 226(a)(2) by failing to list total hours	Wage statements omitted or misstated hours, so § 226(a)(2) violated	Defendants say they issued wage statements and point to irregular "86.67" entries (bank error)	Held there was a § 226(a)(2) violation: wage statements lacked accurate hours or were silent; no evidence they provided accurate hours
Whether the § 226(a) violation was "knowing and intentional"	Plaintiffs: Defendants knew statements did not show hours; omission was policy, not clerical error	Defendants invoke good-faith belief/misclassification and compliance efforts	Held violation was knowing and intentional; court declined to apply a good-faith defense to § 226(e) liability
Injury and damages under § 226(e) and PAGA entitlement	Plaintiffs rely on 2013 amendment: injury occurs if employee cannot "promptly and easily" determine required info from the statement alone; seek statutory penalties and PAGA civil penalties	Defendants argue deprivation alone is not cognizable injury (relying on pre-2013 cases)	Held 2013 amendment clarifies law and applies; Plaintiffs showed injury because statements were silent/inaccurate; one plaintiff (A. Bolling) entitled to $550 in § 226 statutory penalties; Plaintiffs are entitled to PAGA civil penalties (amount to be determined)

Key Cases Cited

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard)
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (summary judgment - inferences and materiality)
Ramirez v. Yosemite Water Co., 20 Cal.4th 785 (Cal. 1999) (employer bears burden to prove exemption; duties, not titles, control)
Martinez v. Combs, 49 Cal.4th 35 (Cal. 2010) (IWC wage orders and covered industries)
Peabody v. Time Warner Cable, Inc., 59 Cal.4th 662 (Cal. 2014) (IWC wage orders remain effective)
Nissan Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Fritz Cos., 210 F.3d 1099 (9th Cir. 2000) (summary judgment burdens when moving party will bear burden at trial)
Jerman v. Carlisle, 559 U.S. 573 (statutory ignorance of law not a defense)
Iskanian v. CLS Transp. L.A., LLC, 59 Cal.4th 348 (PAGA: qui tam–style civil action by aggrieved employee)
Arias v. Superior Court, 46 Cal.4th 969 (PAGA penalties allocation between state and employee)
McClung v. Employment Development Dept., 34 Cal.4th 467 (clarifying retroactivity/clarification analysis for statutory amendments)