Carter v. Golden Gate Freightliner Inc

Background

Stephen Carter sued his former employer, Golden Gate Freightliner Inc, alleging California wage-and-hour violations and violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The challenged claims included overtime, timely payment of wages, accurate itemized wage statements, and unfair competition. Some of the California claims were brought under California’s Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA), which permits an employee to seek civil penalties on behalf of the state and other allegedly affected employees.

Carter worked as a service writer from February 1997 until his termination on September 18, 2017. The opinion states that he was paid every two weeks as a nonexempt hourly employee and that he and other employees frequently worked more than eight hours in a day and 40 hours in a week. He received final paychecks on September 18, 2017. He filed the lawsuit on November 30, 2018.

Golden Gate Freightliner moved for partial summary judgment under Rule 56, which allows judgment when there is no genuine dispute about a material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part.

Count I: PAGA overtime claim

Count I alleged unpaid overtime under California Labor Code section 510 and sought relief under section 558 through PAGA. The court held that unpaid wages could not be recovered through this PAGA claim. To recover unpaid wages, Carter needed to bring a separate individual claim under Labor Code section 1194(a), rather than include the wage recovery in the representative PAGA claim.

The court also held that the PAGA overtime claim was filed too late. It determined that the latest date on which the claim accrued was September 18, 2017, when Carter was terminated and his wages were due. Because Carter filed his complaint more than 430 days after that date, the court held that the PAGA overtime claim was barred by the applicable limitations period.

The court granted summary judgment for Golden Gate Freightliner on Count I to the extent it asserted a PAGA claim. It granted Carter leave to amend Count I only to assert an individual action under section 1194(a).

Count III: PAGA claim for late payment of wages

Count III alleged that Golden Gate Freightliner violated California Labor Code section 204 by failing to pay wages on time. The employer submitted payroll records covering October 2014 through September 2017. The records showed that Carter was paid twice monthly, or every two weeks, as required by section 204.

Carter did not provide evidence creating a genuine factual dispute and did not address Count III or the employer’s evidence in his opposition. The court therefore granted summary judgment for Golden Gate Freightliner on Count III.

Count IV: PAGA wage-statement claim

Count IV alleged that Golden Gate Freightliner failed to provide accurate, itemized wage statements under California Labor Code sections 226(a) and 226.3. The employer argued that the claim accrued when Carter received his final paycheck on September 18, 2017 and was therefore untimely.

The court rejected summary judgment on that argument. It explained that section 226(a) requires a wage statement at the time wages are paid or semimonthly. The record supported the possibility that the relevant date was September 27, 2017, rather than the termination date. Carter also stated that he did not receive wage statements for his final paychecks until summer 2018 or later, after his attorney requested them. Because the court had to accept Carter’s version of disputed facts when deciding the employer’s motion, it held that the employer had not shown as a matter of law that Count IV was untimely.

The court denied summary judgment as to Count IV.

Count VI: unfair-competition claim

Golden Gate Freightliner sought summary judgment on Count VI to the extent Carter sought penalties under California’s unfair-competition law. The court noted, however, that the complaint sought restitution rather than penalties. Because penalties cannot be recovered under that law and the complaint did not seek them under Count VI, the court denied the employer’s motion as to Count VI.

Disposition

Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley granted in part and denied in part Golden Gate Freightliner’s motion for partial summary judgment. The court granted summary judgment in favor of the employer on Counts I and III, denied summary judgment as to Counts IV and VI, and allowed Carter to amend Count I only to assert an individual claim under Labor Code section 1194(a). The amended complaint was due within 10 days and had to be consistent with the order.