Gonzalez v. Millard Mall Services, Inc.
281 F.R.D. 455
S.D. Cal.2012Background
- Millard Mall Services, Inc. and The Millard Group, Inc. operate nationwide janitorial services, including California work sites.
- Two named plaintiffs (Gonzalez and Juan) allege unmet meal/rest period rights, unpaid split-shift pay, and improper final wages and out-of-state checks.
- Plaintiffs seek class certification for two classes and four subclasses alleging wage-and-hour violations under California law (Labor Code and Wage Order 4-2001) and UCL, plus PAGA penalties.
- Millard’s operations in California are centralized in Illinois with Project Managers at each location controlling schedules, meals, and rests; payroll is processed from Illinois.
- Court grants class certification for a limited subset (Class A: April 1, 2005 to June 1, 2009) and denies certification for all other labor-code-based claims; court grants judicial notice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Commonality under Rule 23(a)(2) for meal/rest periods | Gonzalez argues common policy/impact on breaks across locations. | Millard contends varied local discretion defeats commonality. | No common policy; individualized reasons predominate. |
| Commonality under Rule 23(a)(2) for split-shift pay | Split-shift pay withheld by employer policy; common questions exist. | Discretion at location level; no uniform policy. | No common question; requires individualized inquiries. |
| Commonality under Rule 23(a)(2) for waiting time penalties | Willful failure to timely pay final wages exists across class. | Willfulness and timing vary by employee. | Not established as common; individualized issues predominate. |
| Predominance under Rule 23(b)(3) for Labor Code §212 period | Two time periods: pre- and post-PID; common issues predominate for first period. | Post-PID period has individualized issues; no predominance. | Predominance found for April 1, 2005–June 1, 2009; not for June 1, 2009–March 1, 2010. |
| Superiority under Rule 23(b)(3) for §212 claim | Class action superior due to low-wage employees and small recoveries. | Individual actions feasible given damages/penalties. | Superior method satisfied for 2005–2009 period; not for 2009–2010 period. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dukes v. Wal‑Mart Stores, Inc., 131 S. Ct. 2541 (U.S. 2011) (commonality requires a common policy or mode of discretion across class)
- Arias v. Superior Court, 46 Cal.4th 969 (Cal. 2009) (PAGA standing allows representative action without class certification)
- Stearns v. Ticketmaster Corp., 655 F.3d 1013 (9th Cir. 2011) (probative cohesion for 23(b)(3) predominance)
- Brown v. Ralphs Grocery Co., 197 Cal.App.4th 489 (Cal. App. 2011) (class certification considerations for California wage claims)
- Ortega v. J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc., 258 F.R.D. 361 (C.D. Cal. 2009) (distinguishable due to truck-driver context; no broad company-wide policy)