Valenzuela v. Best-Line Shades, Inc.
- Jacquelyn Corley
- 3:19-cv-07293
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 8
In Valenzuela v. Best-Line Shades, Inc., Judge Corley granted in part and denied in part plaintiffs’ default-judgment motion, awarding $2,489,072.92.
The ruling affects Dolores Valenzuela, Adela Flores, Raymunda Menjivar, the certified class and FLSA collective, other affected employees, the Labor and Workforce Development Agency, and defendants Best-Line Shades, Inc., Best-Line, Inc., and Jill Schaffer.
What happened
In Valenzuela v. Best-Line Shades, Inc., former employees sued Best-Line Shades, Inc., Best-Line, Inc., and Jill Schaffer for unpaid wages and penalties under federal and California labor laws. They alleged that the companies automatically deducted meal-break time and failed to pay employees before closing.
The defendants stopped participating in the case and did not obtain required legal representation or respond to the court’s order. The court entered their default, and the plaintiffs later submitted additional evidence supporting their damages calculations.
Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley granted in part and denied in part the plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment. The court awarded class damages, individual damages to Dolores Valenzuela, penalties, attorneys’ fees, and costs, and stated that the defendants were liable for $2,489,072.92.
The detailed version
- Valenzuela v. Best-Line Shades, Inc. · No. 3:19-cv-07293
- Jacquelyn Corley
- July 8, 2024
Background
Dolores Valenzuela, Adela Flores, and Raymunda Menjivar brought a wage-and-hour class and collective action against Best-Line Shades, Inc., Best-Line, Inc., and Jill Schaffer. The plaintiffs alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and California labor laws, including unpaid wages, meal-period violations, inadequate payroll records, and related penalties. They alleged that the defendants automatically deducted 30 minutes from employees’ pay without corresponding time records and failed to pay employees for the two weeks before the facility stopped operating.
The court certified a class and an FLSA collective action in 2021. The defendants did not provide the ordered class list, did not obtain required counsel after their attorney withdrew, and did not otherwise continue participating in the case. The court entered the defendants’ default on February 18, 2022. The plaintiffs’ earlier default-judgment motions were denied, including motions denied without prejudice to refiling with more evidence supporting the damages calculations. The motion addressed in this order was supported by declarations from plaintiffs’ counsel and expert Aaron Woolfson.
Default Judgment
The court found that service and jurisdiction requirements were satisfied. It concluded that the defendants’ initial participation waived any service or personal-jurisdiction objections. Applying the factors used to decide whether to enter default judgment, the court found that the plaintiffs’ claims were adequately pleaded, that the plaintiffs would be prejudiced without a judgment, and that the defendants had chosen not to defend the action.
Because the defendants were in default, the factual allegations concerning liability were treated as admitted, but the plaintiffs still had to prove the amount of damages. The court accepted the expert’s calculations, which used payroll information obtained from Paychex after the defendants failed to produce payroll records. The court concluded that the allegations and evidence were sufficient to hold both the corporate defendants and Schaffer liable under the FLSA and the cited California labor-law provisions.
Amounts Awarded
The court awarded:
- $1,642,572.92 in class damages; - $948 in individual damages to Valenzuela for violations involving payroll and personnel records; - $845,750 in Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) penalties, with $634,312.59 awarded to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency and $211,437.50 awarded to the plaintiffs and other affected employees; - $296,248.50 in attorneys’ fees, after a 10-percent reduction; and - $3,418.20 in costs.
The order states that the motion for default judgment was granted in part and denied in part. It states that the defendants were liable for a total of $2,489,072.92 and that the order disposed of Docket No. 116.
Read the full 8-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.