Falk v. Children's Hospital Los Angeles
188 Cal. Rptr. 3d 686
Cal. Ct. App.2015Background
- Four wage & hour class actions were filed against Children’s Hospital LA from 2007–2013, with Palazzolo (2007) as the lead class action; Mays (2012) and Falk (2012) followed, and Schmidt (2013) concerned related claims; summary judgment was granted against Falk on statute of limitations grounds, and tolling of limitations via American Pipe was at issue; Palazzolo’s claims were adjudicated on the merits individually, while class certification was not decided; Falk argued Palazzolo tolled her claims and that tolling should extend to Mays and to Falk’s own action; the trial court ruled tolling did not apply or, if it did, only to some claims, leading to an appeal on the tolling theory; the appellate court affirmed in part and reversed in part regarding which claims were timely.
- The court held that American Pipe tolling applies to some Falk claims (overtime/regular rate, meal/rest periods, wage statements, etc.) but not to others (specifically one-year wage-statement claims).
- The hospital argued Palazzolo lacked notice of Falk’s claims and that tolling must end when Palazzolo resolved; Falk argued Palazzolo provided sufficient notice and tolling should extend.
- The court concluded Palazzolo gave sufficient notice to toll Falk’s claims and that tolling lasted from May 1, 2007, to February 3, 2011, with limited one-year claims time-barred; four-year/two- to four-year claims remained timely; piggybacking of successive class actions is permissible under certain conditions; the judgment is affirmed for timely claims and reversed for those subject to three- or four-year statutes of limitations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does American Pipe tolling apply to Falk’s claims? | Palazzolo tolls Falk’s claims. | Tolling does not apply or ends earlier. | Yes for some claims; tolling applies to certain wage/hour claims. |
| Did Palazzolo give sufficient notice of Falk’s claims to toll? | Palazzolo provided sufficient notice. | Palazzolo lacked sufficient notice. | Palazzolo provided sufficient notice; tolling extends. |
| What is the tolling period duration? | Tolling from May 1, 2007, to remittitur Feb 3, 2011. | Tolling ends at April 7, 2009 (judgment) or Feb 3, 2011. | Tolling from May 1, 2007 to Feb 3, 2011; some claims time-barred, others timely. |
| May successive class actions piggyback on tolling? | Allowed under certain conditions. | Risks of unlimited tolling; restricts. | Piggybacking allowed when earlier denial based on Rule 23 deficiencies in the class representative, not in the class itself. |
| Which Falk claims remain timely vs time-barred? | All tollable; most three- to four-year claims survive. | One-year wage-statement claims barred. | One-year claims time-barred; three- or four-year claims timely. |
Key Cases Cited
- American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah, 414 U.S. 538 (U.S. 1974) (tolling for class actions where certification denied or other endings)
- Crown, Cork & Seal Co. v. Parker, 462 U.S. 345 (U.S. 1983) (extended tolling to all asserted members of the class)
- Jolly v. Eli Lilly & Co., 44 Cal.3d 1103 (Cal. 1988) (California adoption of American Pipe tolling principles)
- Sawyer v. Atlas Heating & Sheet Metal Works, Inc., 642 F.3d 560 (7th Cir. 2011) (tolling lasting from class claim to denials; practical tolling in related contexts)
- Yang v. Odom, 392 F.3d 97 (3d Cir. 2004) (subset of tolling rules for successive class actions; Rule 23 deficiencies matter)
- Perkin v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co., 225 Cal.App.4th 492 (Cal. App. 2014) (tolling when class certification issues do not apply to substantive claims)
- Bangert v. Narmco Materials, Inc., 163 Cal.App.3d 207 (Cal. App. 1985) (tolling under certain class action scenarios)