Torres v. Air to Ground Services, Inc.
300 F.R.D. 386
C.D. Cal.2014Background
- Plaintiffs Torres and Carino, ATG vehicle cleaners at FedEx’s LAX hangar, sued ATG and FedEx alleging violations of the Los Angeles Living Wage Ordinance (LWO) and related California Labor Code claims for unpaid wages, waiting-time penalties, and inaccurate wage statements.
- FedEx holds the master lease with Los Angeles World Airports and subcontracted cleaning to ATG; the subcontract required ATG to comply with the LWO.
- The City’s Office of Contract Compliance (OCC) investigated, concluded the LWO applied to vehicle cleaners beginning May 1, 2010, issued a Final Notice, and ATG adjusted wages and issued backpay checks through March 4, 2014.
- Plaintiffs moved to certify a class of all non-exempt ATG employees at LAX from March 13, 2009 through the action; defendants opposed, raising standing, joint-employer, and manageability/predominance objections.
- The court conducted a Rule 23 rigorous analysis, resolved subject-matter standing as to FedEx (joint-employer), narrowed the class period to May 1, 2010–March 4, 2014, and granted certification in part while denying certification for the UCL claim and the uncompensated-leave theory.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing / Joint-employer (FedEx) | FedEx exercised control over cleaners (equipment, training, assignments, inspections) making it a joint employer. | FedEx argued plaintiffs cannot show control over wages/hours/conditions and thus lack Article III standing to sue FedEx. | Court found disputed facts on control (especially working-conditions) sufficient at certification stage to allow plaintiffs to proceed against FedEx. |
| Class period / Definition | Class may start March 13, 2009; plaintiffs sought broad class of ATG non-exempt LAX cleaners. | ATG pointed to OCC findings and plaintiffs’ own pleading that vehicle cleaners were covered starting May 1, 2010. | Class period limited to May 1, 2010–March 4, 2014 (March 4, 2014 is date ATG changed pay/time-off policies). |
| Rule 23(a): commonality/typicality/adequacy | Plaintiffs: common question whether LWO applied and whether defendants’ policies deprived class of LWO wages/time-off; plaintiffs typical and adequate. | Defendants: variations in individual pay/time-off, credibility and unique defenses undermine typicality/adequacy. | Court found numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy satisfied for most claims; credibility disputes insufficient to defeat adequacy. |
| Rule 23(b)(3): predominance & superiority (including UCL) | Common issues (LWO applicability, wage/time-off policies, willfulness, wage-statement inaccuracies) predominate; class action is superior. | ATG argued individualized damage/time-off claims and that OCC remediation moots restitution/UCL claims; FedEx argued joint-employer inquiries would be individualized. | Court held common issues predominate for LWO wage and compensated-time-off claims, waiting-time penalties (subclass), and wage-statement claim; individualized inquiries defeat class treatment of uncompensated-leave theory; UCL claim not certifiable (restitution and injunctive relief already effected by OCC and ATG remediation). |
Key Cases Cited
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011) (class-certification standards and rigorous Rule 23 analysis)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (Article III standing requirements)
- Martinez v. Combs, 49 Cal.4th 35 (2010) (California standard for employer / joint-employer under IWC wage orders)
- Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591 (1997) (predominance and superiority in Rule 23(b)(3) analysis)
- Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 1998) (typicality and adequacy standards for class representatives)
- Leyva v. Medline Indus. Inc., 716 F.3d 510 (2013) (damages calculations do not preclude class certification)