Vasquez v. Leprino Foods Company
1:17-cv-00796
E.D. Cal.May 2, 2022Background
- Plaintiffs (Isaias Vasquez & Linda Hefke) bring a class action under CA law alleging Leprino required nonexempt hourly employees to remain “on‑call” during meal and rest breaks, certified March 30, 2020.
- Leprino had written meal/rest‑break policies stating breaks are duty‑free and employees are free to leave, and provided some break relief; facility runs 24/7 with production/quality emphasis.
- Evidence (declarations, depositions, and a plaintiff expert survey) shows many employees carried radios or otherwise received work communications during breaks, sometimes responded, and sometimes received verbal warnings or threats for nonresponse.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment and decertification arguing breaks were not uniformly on‑call, employees were free to leave, and individualized issues predominate.
- Court denied summary judgment (genuine factual disputes re: on‑call status and employer control) and denied decertification (common questions predominate); but sua sponte stayed the case pending the California Supreme Court’s decision in Naranjo v. Spectrum Security Services.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether on‑call break time was compensable (SJ) | Facility policies/practices (24/7 ops, quality/production emphasis, radios, threats) effectively required employees to remain at‑the‑ready during breaks. | Leprino had compliant written policies; employees were free to leave and were rarely contacted; no facility‑wide requirement to be reachable. | Denied SJ: factual disputes exist about whether employees were required to be on‑call; reasonable juror could find for either side. |
| Applicability of control tests from Mendiola/Madera | Augustus (short breaks) governs; control over short rest/meal breaks assessed differently than long on‑call shifts. | Defendants urge applying Mendiola/Madera control tests (used for long on‑call shifts). | Court: Augustus controls for short breaks; Mendiola/Madera tests are distinguishable and inapplicable. |
| Class decertification / predominance under Rule 23(b)(3) | Liability depends on whether Leprino’s facility‑wide policies/practices put employees on‑call — a common question resolvable class‑wide; damages are individual. | Determination would require individualized “mini‑trials” of each member’s experience and subjective interpretation of policies. | Denied decertification: common issues remain capable of class‑wide resolution and predominate over individualized issues. |
| Whether to stay the case pending Naranjo | (Plaintiffs had liability and penalty claims potentially affected by Naranjo.) | (Defendants did not oppose stay as presented.) | Court sua sponte stayed the action pending CA Supreme Court decision in Naranjo because that decision may affect penalty and interest issues relevant to the class. |
Key Cases Cited
- Augustus v. ABM Sec. Servs., Inc., 2 Cal.5th 257 (Cal. 2016) (meal/rest periods must be free from employer control; on‑call duties incompatible with rest).
- Mendiola v. CPS Sec. Sols., Inc., 60 Cal.4th 833 (Cal. 2015) (control test for long on‑call shifts; distinguished from short breaks).
- Brinker Rest. Corp. v. Superior Court, 53 Cal.4th 1004 (Cal. 2012) (employer must provide duty‑free breaks but need not police employees; informal practices that undermine written policies can establish liability).
- Wal‑Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (U.S. 2011) (common question that resolves central issues for all class members satisfies Rule 23).
- Amchem Prods. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591 (U.S. 1997) (class cohesion and predominance inquiry under Rule 23).