Esparza v. Safeway, Inc.
247 Cal. Rptr. 3d 875
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2019Background
- Safeway maintained a pre-June 17, 2007 practice of not paying Labor Code §226.7 premium wages for missed, short, or late meal periods regardless of cause; after June 17, 2007 it began paying premiums through a new timekeeping system.
- Plaintiffs (Esparza, Burns, Thaxton, Vezaldenos) sued; asserted a UCL class claim (certified for NorCal/Vons hourly store employees from Dec. 28, 2001 to June 17, 2007) and a PAGA claim later narrowed to Vezaldenos and to violations before June 17, 2007.
- On class certification plaintiffs argued restitution could be measured by the market value of the lost statutory guarantee (not by proving individualized meal-period violations); the appellate court previously upheld certification without deciding the merits of that restitution theory.
- At summary adjudication the trial court struck plaintiffs’ economist declaration under the Sargon gatekeeping standard and granted summary adjudication of the UCL restitution claim for failure to present an admissible, viable method to measure classwide harm.
- The trial court also struck Vezaldenos’s PAGA claim as time-barred: PAGA requires pre-filing LWDA notice and a one-year limitations period; plaintiffs’ LWDA notice (July 2008) and PAGA pleading (Feb 2009) came after the June 17, 2008 deadline for violations ending June 17, 2007.
- The appellate court affirmed both rulings: (1) plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue that restitution was measurable; (2) relation-back could not rescue the untimely PAGA claim because the LWDA did not receive timely notice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether UCL restitution is available for Safeway's no-premium-wages policy and measurable on a classwide basis | Plaintiffs argued the class lost the value of the statutory guarantee and restitution can be measured by a market-value approach (or by counting short/missed periods × hourly rates) without individualized proof of violations | Safeway argued plaintiffs offered no admissible methodology to measure classwide restitution and sought per-violation premium pay without proving classwide violations | Court: Plaintiffs failed to present admissible, non-speculative expert methodology; summary adjudication for Safeway affirmed — restitution not shown measurable classwide |
| Admissibility of plaintiffs’ economist declaration under Sargon/Evidence Code standards | Declaration illustrated workers’ market choices and opined the value could be monetized | Safeway argued the declaration was speculative, tautological, and unsupported by data or a method | Court: Expert was unreliable and speculative; declaration properly excluded under Sargon; exclusion supported summary adjudication |
| Whether PAGA claim (pre-June 17, 2007 violations) was timely given one-year statute of limitations and LWDA notice requirement | Vezaldenos argued her PAGA claim related back to original April 2007 complaint, preserving timeliness | Safeway argued LWDA notice is a condition precedent and plaintiffs’ notice (July 2008) and PAGA pleading (Feb 2009) were after the one-year limitations period | Court: PAGA requires timely pre-filing LWDA notice; the claim accrued by June 17, 2007 and the one-year period expired June 17, 2008; relation-back does not apply because LWDA lacked timely notice — PAGA claim barred |
| Whether relation-back doctrine can cure failure to give LWDA notice within limitations period | Plaintiffs urged relation back to original complaint (no prior LWDA notice) | Safeway argued relation back cannot be used to circumvent statutory administrative preconditions and would frustrate LWDA's interest | Court: Relation back cannot retroactively satisfy LWDA notice requirement; applying it would frustrate legislative intent — relation back rejected |
Key Cases Cited
- Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court, 53 Cal.4th 1004 (Cal. 2012) (employer satisfies meal-period duty by relinquishing control and not discouraging breaks)
- Sargon Enterprises, Inc. v. University of Southern California, 55 Cal.4th 747 (Cal. 2012) (trial court gatekeeping of expert opinion; inadmissible if speculative or unsupported)
- Murphy v. Kenneth Cole Productions, Inc., 40 Cal.4th 1094 (Cal. 2007) (premium wage remedy for missed meal periods vests when employer denies a meal period)
- Kirby v. Immoos Fire Protection, Inc., 53 Cal.4th 1244 (Cal. 2012) (one additional hour pay per missed meal period under Lab. Code §226.7)
- Amaral v. Cintas Corp. No. 2, 163 Cal.App.4th 1157 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) (addressed earlier PAGA without pre-filing LWDA notice requirement)
- Williams v. Superior Court, 3 Cal.5th 531 (Cal. 2017) (PAGA pre-filing LWDA notice is a mandatory condition of suit)
- Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC, 59 Cal.4th 348 (Cal. 2014) (PAGA vindicates the state's interest in enforcing the Labor Code)
- Brown v. Ralphs Grocery Co., 28 Cal.App.5th 824 (Cal. Ct. App. 2018) (untimely PAGA claims cannot relate back unless earlier complaint was preceded by timely LWDA notice)