Castillo v. Morales, Inc.
2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123409
| S.D. Ohio | 2014Background
- Plaintiff Sanchez sues for FLSA wage/hour violations and parallel Ohio law claims on behalf of herself and other El Vaquero employees in Columbus area locations since July 18, 2009.
- Defendants own eight El Vaquero restaurants; locations share branding, hours, menu, and law/accounting firms.
- Plaintiff alleges uniform unlawful pay practices across locations and ownership by Morales and Quezada families.
- Plaintiff seeks conditional FLSA collective certification (three subclasses) and Rule 23 class certification (four subclasses) plus class counsel designation.
- Court granted Plaintiff’s motion, certifying the FLSA collective and the Rule 23 class, and addressing Ohio constitutional issues regarding § K2.
- Ohio’s Motion to Dismiss Count X was granted as moot; declaratory judgment favored inapplicability of § K2 to this case.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether conditional FLSA certification is proper | Sanchez shows uniform pay practices across locations. | No single enterprise or common policy across Defendants. | GRANTED |
| Whether Rule 23 class certification is proper | Proposed subclasses are numerous, commonality/predominance exist, and joinder impracticable. | No common policy; individual restaurant policies vary. | GRANTED |
| Whether declaratory judgment on § K2 applicability is appropriate | § K2 not applicable to § 34a claims or federal court context. | § K2 could apply; action selectable for dismissal. | GRANTED as to inapplicability of § K2; Count X dismissed as moot |
Key Cases Cited
- O'Brien v. Ed Donnelly Enters., Inc., 575 F.3d 567 (6th Cir. 2009) (defines similarly situated standard for FLSA, flexible, common theories)
- Comer v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 454 F.3d 544 (6th Cir. 2006) (two-step approach to certification; similarity adequate at initial stage)
- Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. v. Sperling, 493 U.S. 165 (Sup. Ct. 1989) (notice and opt-in structure governs § 216(b))
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (U.S. 2011) (Rule 23 predominance and common questions; rigorous analysis required)
- Falcon v. General Motors, 457 U.S. 147 (1982) (rigorous analysis standard for class certification)
- Lems v. Huntington Nat’l Bank, 789 F. Supp. 2d 863 (S.D. Ohio 2011) (context on similarly situated and commonality in wage claims)