Martinez v. Landry's Rests., Inc.
237 Cal. Rptr. 3d 379
| Cal. Ct. App. 5th | 2018Background
- Martinez and three co-plaintiffs sued Joe’s Crab Shack entities on behalf of putative California salaried employees, alleging misclassification as exempt managers and withheld overtime; original complaint filed Sept. 7, 2007.
- Important procedural events: discovery order to produce putative-class contact info (May 2008) led to a writ (Joe’s Crab Shack I) that consumed 319 days before remittitur; removal to federal court under CAFA occurred March 25, 2009 and remand notice returned state-court jurisdiction June 8, 2009 (75 days), but Ninth Circuit appeal ran until Nov. 24, 2009 (additional 169 days); class-certification appeal (Joe’s Crab Shack II) spanned 958 days between notice of appeal and remittitur.
- After remand from the class-certification appeal, plaintiffs served extensive e-discovery in Jan. 2015 and moved to compel; court ordered limited e-discovery Sept. 28, 2015; full production of ~83,000 pages completed by April–June 2016.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under Code Civ. Proc. §§ 583.310/.360 for failure to bring action to trial within five years; trial court calculated tolling only for federal removal (75 days) and the class-certification appeal (958 days), found the five-year period expired (adjusted by § 583.350 six‑month rule), and dismissed.
- Plaintiffs appealed, arguing additional exclusions under § 583.340(c) for (1) the 319 days the writ petition was pending, (2) the 169 days between remand notice and Ninth Circuit affirmance, and (3) ~9 months delay in e-discovery compliance — claiming impossibility, impracticability, or futility to bring the case to trial during those intervals. The Court of Appeal affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 169‑day period between district-court remand notice and Ninth Circuit affirmance must be excluded under § 583.340(c) | That appeal made it impracticable/futile to prosecute in state court while jurisdiction was uncertain | Remand restored state-court jurisdiction when filed; plaintiffs could have pursued discovery and no stay existed | Exclusion denied — plaintiffs failed to show reasonable diligence; inclusion of this time was not an abuse of discretion |
| Whether the ~9‑month delay in complying with the e‑discovery order should be excluded under § 583.340(c) | Delay in production of ESI made class-certification proof and trial impossible/impracticable | E‑discovery delay is an ordinary litigation incident; plaintiffs delayed serving ESI requests until 2015 and chose to seek further discovery rather than immediately re‑renew class motion | Exclusion denied — trial court reasonably found plaintiffs lacked diligence; time counted toward the five‑year limit |
| Whether the 319‑day writ proceeding over production of putative-class contact info must be excluded under § 583.340(c) | Withholding of contact info prevented meaningful class-certification work, so it was impossible to proceed | Only identity/contact production was stayed; other discovery continued and writ was an ordinary litigation event | Court declined to decide the merits because even if excluded, tolling plus other periods still produced expiry before plaintiffs acted; any error was harmless |
| Whether dismissal under §§ 583.310/.360 was proper given tolling rules (including § 583.350 six‑month rule) | Plaintiffs argued additional tolling periods pushed the deadline later and made dismissal improper | Defendants argued only statutory tolling applied (removal and class‑appeal periods); remaining days expired and § 583.350 gave only six months more, which plaintiffs missed | Affirmed — court properly calculated tolling and dismissal was not an abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Bruns v. E-Commerce Exchange, Inc., 51 Cal.4th 717 (discusses § 583.340(c) standard and reasonable diligence inquiry)
- Gaines v. Fidelity Nat. Title Ins. Co., 62 Cal.4th 1081 (mandatory dismissal under § 583.360 when five‑year rule not met)
- Sav-On Drug Stores, Inc. v. Superior Court, 34 Cal.4th 319 (employer's realistic expectations can supply common proof for wage‑and‑hour class actions)
- Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court, 53 Cal.4th 1004 (principles governing wage‑and‑hour class certification)
- Duran v. U.S. Bank Nat. Assn., 59 Cal.4th 1 (authority considered in class predominance analysis)
- Ayala v. Antelope Valley Newspapers, Inc., 59 Cal.4th 522 (class‑action predominance discussion)
- Ramirez v. Yosemite Water Co., 20 Cal.4th 785 (importance of realistic job requirements in exemption analysis)
- Pioneer Electronics (USA), Inc. v. Superior Court, 40 Cal.4th 360 (discovery limits and access to potential class members)
- Joe's Crab Shack Holdings, Inc. v. Superior Court (Joe's Crab Shack I), 169 Cal.App.4th 958 (writ upholding order to produce putative‑class contact info)
- Martinez v. Joe's Crab Shack Holdings (Joe's Crab Shack II), 231 Cal.App.4th 362 (appellate decision on class certification issues)
- Lee v. Dynamex, Inc., 166 Cal.App.4th 1325 (remedy when identity/contact discovery is wrongly denied)