Radford v. Nexstar Broadcasting, Inc.

Background

Steven Radford brought a wage-and-hour class action against Nexstar Broadcasting, Inc., Nexstar Broadcasting Group, Inc., and Nexstar Media Inc., which the opinion collectively calls “Nexstar.” Radford alleged that Nexstar failed to provide meal and rest breaks, reimburse necessary business expenses, provide timely and accurate wage statements, and pay overtime and minimum wages. He also sought civil penalties under California’s Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act and brought claims under California’s Labor Code and Unfair Competition Law.

The court had previously dismissed an earlier amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which concerns whether a complaint adequately states a claim, and allowed Radford to amend. After Radford filed additional amended complaints, Nexstar again moved to dismiss and moved to strike the class allegations and request for injunctive relief.

Rulings on the Claims

The court held that Radford’s overtime, meal-period, and rest-period claims were pleaded with enough specificity. He alleged that he worked before and after scheduled shifts, worked through meal and rest periods, and was not paid for that time. He identified periods when this allegedly occurred, described the amount of pre- and post-shift work, alleged interruptions during at least half of his meals, and alleged that he did not receive uninterrupted first or second rest periods. The court denied the motion to dismiss Claims 3, 4, and 5.

The court also denied the motion to dismiss the minimum-wage claim, Claim 2, because it was based on the same alleged unpaid work. It denied the motion to dismiss the expense-reimbursement claim, Claim 7, based on allegations that Radford had to use personal phones, applications, a desk, and home internet for work without reimbursement.

For the itemized wage-statement claim, Claim 6, the court found that Radford adequately alleged both an inaccurate wage statement and resulting injury. The alleged inaccuracies included hours worked during meal and rest breaks and before and after clocking in. The court denied the motion to dismiss that claim.

The court denied the motion to dismiss the Unfair Competition Law, wages-when-due, and Private Attorneys General Act claims, Claims 1, 8, and 9. Nexstar had challenged those claims only as derivative of the other California Labor Code claims, so the court allowed them to remain for the same reasons.

Motion to Strike

Nexstar sought to strike Radford’s class allegations for failure to plead facts showing commonality under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. It also sought to strike the request for injunctive relief. The court denied both requests. It found the class challenge premature because the relevant company policies and practices were within Nexstar’s control and could be developed through discovery. It also held that a motion to strike was not the proper procedure for challenging whether a type of relief was legally available.

Disposition

The court denied Nexstar’s Motion to Dismiss and to Strike. The order did not decide whether Radford or the proposed class will ultimately prevail on the wage-and-hour claims, and it did not certify a class.