Iravanian v. Transperfect Translations International

Background

The defendant asked the court to certify an interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). An interlocutory appeal is an appeal before the district court has entered a final judgment. The proposed appeal concerned when a claim under California Labor Code § 226(a), which requires accurate itemized wage statements, accrues for limitations purposes: when final post-separation wages are due or when overdue wages are paid.

In an earlier order, the court denied in part and granted in part the defendant’s motion to dismiss the Fourth Amended Complaint. On the wage-statement issue, the court stated that the statute requires wage statements “at the time of each payment of wages” and concluded that Iravanian’s claim accrued no earlier than her October 20, 2021 payment. The court also noted that the defendant had not provided persuasive authority or argument for treating the claim as accruing when the wages were due rather than when they were paid.

Motion for Interlocutory Appeal

Section 1292(b) requires findings that an order involves a controlling legal question, that there is substantial ground for disagreement about that question, and that an immediate appeal may materially advance the end of the litigation. The court assumed, for purposes of its analysis, that the first two requirements were satisfied.

The court nevertheless denied certification because an immediate appeal would not materially advance the litigation. The earlier order left most of Iravanian’s claims intact, so other issues would still need to be resolved. The court also identified an additional reason for denial: the defendant’s certification motion relied on cases, statutory arguments, a Department of Labor Standards Enforcement framework, and an argument about employer incentives that the defendant had not presented when litigating the motion to dismiss. The court concluded that the defendant had effectively forfeited the more developed presentation it sought to make to the Court of Appeals.

Motion for Reconsideration

The defendant also filed a motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration concerning the court’s use of August 20, 2021, as Iravanian’s last day of compensable work. The court denied that motion for two reasons.

First, the date did not materially affect the issues remaining in the case and, as the defendant conceded, was relevant only to the certification motion. The court stated that a semimonthly wage-statement date based on August 20 could fall within the limitations period, and the certification motion had already been denied for reasons unaffected by the precise last day of work.

Second, the defendant argued that reconsideration was warranted because the court had failed to consider material facts or dispositive legal arguments previously presented. The court rejected that argument. It found that the Fourth Amended Complaint alleged August 20 as Iravanian’s last day of employment, that the meaning of that allegation in the alleged independent-contractor misclassification context was not clear if it did not mean her last day of work, and that the defendant had itself stated in its reply brief that Iravanian last worked on August 20, 2021.

Disposition

Judge Tigar denied the motion for certification of an interlocutory appeal, ECF No. 108. The court also denied the motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration, ECF No. 109.