Thurman v. Bayshore Transit Management, Inc.
203 Cal. App. 4th 1112
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- In Jan 2004, the union filed a representative action for National City Transit bus drivers alleging Labor Code meal/rest period violations; Thurman was added as a plaintiff in Feb 2005.
- Defendants Bayshore Transit Management and McDonald Transit Associates operated NCT under a City of National City contract; by trial, only Bayshore and McDonald remained.
- A bench trial awarded $358,588.22 in PAGA civil penalties, plus Thurman’s UCL restitution of $28,605 and prejudgment interest of $10,253; both sides appealed.
- Cal. Supreme Court’s Amalgamated Transit decision (2009) held unions without injury or aggrieved employee status cannot pursue representative UCL/PAGA actions; affected class-cert status.
- The trial court denied Thurman’s continuance to pursue class certification and denied class certification; after trial, some penalties/restitution were reversed, prompting appellate review.
- Ultimately, the court affirmed most of the judgment but reversed the recovery for missed meal periods and remanded for redetermination of that portion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused discretion by denying Thurman’s trial continuance for class certification. | Thurman argues Amalgamated Transit required a continuance to pursue class certification. | Defendants contend no good cause shown; prejudice to defendants and case's age; strategic delay by plaintiff. | No abuse of discretion; continuance denial affirmed. |
| Whether the trial court properly denied class certification. | The case is suitable for class treatment given common issues and uniform violations. | Lack of proper notice, discovery, and predominance; due process concerns for absent members. | Denial of class certification affirmed. |
| Whether Thurman may recover PAGA penalties under both Labor Code §558 and Wage Order No. 9. | §558 and Wage Order No. 9 penalties are independent and duplicative remedies. Thurman may recover both. | Wage-order penalties are duplicative of §558 penalties; PAGA targets Labor Code violations only. | No independent Wage Order No. 9 penalties; no double recovery; §558 penalties prevail. |
| Whether the court properly reduced civil penalties under §2699(e)(2). | Maximum penalties should apply unless unjust, arbitrary, oppressive, or confiscatory regardless of evidence. | Courts may exercise discretion under §2699(e)(2) based on facts; reduction supported by record. | Court did not abuse discretion; reduction affirmed. |
| When did Thurman’s UCL claims accrue given the collective bargaining exemption in §514? | Liability should start earlier (2000) under Wage Order No. 9; exemption not retroactive. | Exemption from §514 covered the period; liability delayed until 2002 after amendments clarified scope. | Liability began January 1, 2002; 2001 amendment did not retroactively apply to pre-2002 conduct. |
Key Cases Cited
- Arias v. Superior Court, 46 Cal.4th 969 (2009) (paga private attorney general framework; LWDA primacy)
- Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. v. Superior Court, 191 Cal.App.4th 210 (2010) (private enforcement of labor code penalties; scope of PAGA)
- Caliber Bodyworks, Inc. v. Superior Court, 134 Cal.App.4th 365 (2005) (exhaustion requirements under PAGA; prefiling notice)
- Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 1756, AFL-CIO v. Superior Court, 46 Cal.4th 993 (2009) (standing to bring rep action under UCL/PAGA; class action implications)
- Lazarin v. Superior Court, 188 Cal.App.4th 1560 (2010) (section 514 retroactivity; CBAs exemptions scope)
- McClung v. Employment Development Dept., 34 Cal.4th 467 (2004) (retroactivity and legislative intent principles)
- Bearden v. U.S. Borax, Inc., 138 Cal.App.4th 429 (2006) (agency authority and wage-order exemptions; Bearden cited re IWC limits)
- Jones v. Gregory, 137 Cal.App.4th 798 (2006) (unpaid wages vs civil penalties; Reynolds interpretation)
- Reynolds v. Bement, 36 Cal.4th 1075 (2005) (unpaid wages as civil penalty under §558; agents liability)
- Franco v. Athens Disposal Co., Inc., 171 Cal.App.4th 1277 (2009) (penalties under Wage Order §20; arbitration considerations (distinguished))
- Murphy v. Kenneth Cole Productions, Inc., 40 Cal.4th 1094 (2007) (interpretation of wage-order-related remedies; defers to wage orders)