Stephanie Heredia v. Eddie Bauer LLC

Background

Stephanie Heredia alleged that Eddie Bauer failed to pay hourly employees for time spent undergoing off-the-clock security inspections of their personal belongings before leaving an Eddie Bauer store. Heredia worked as a sales associate at an Eddie Bauer retail store in Gilroy, California, from November 2013 to March 2016.

The court initially certified a California employee class. After the record developed, the court decertified the class because employees experienced both on-the-clock and off-the-clock exit inspections, making individualized inquiries necessary. The court also rejected Heredia’s proposed modified class definition. The remaining claims were Heredia’s individual claims and her representative claim under California’s Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA).

Heredia petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for permission to appeal the decertification order. The Ninth Circuit denied that petition on February 7, 2020. Eddie Bauer then filed the motion addressed in this order.

Eddie Bauer’s Motion

Eddie Bauer moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) to strike Heredia’s representative PAGA claims. Alternatively, it moved under Rule 12(c) for judgment on the pleadings. Eddie Bauer argued that the PAGA claim was unmanageable because proving liability would require individualized inquiries. It also argued that Heredia could not narrow the PAGA claim to alleged violations occurring before 2017 because she had not exhausted the required administrative process for that narrower period.

Heredia argued that PAGA does not impose a manageability requirement. She also argued that the notice requirement concerns the specific labor-law violations, facts, and legal theories asserted, not a later narrowing of the claim’s time period. Heredia further argued that Eddie Bauer’s motion to strike was untimely and that the motion improperly relied on evidence outside the pleadings.

Timeliness of the Motion to Strike

Rule 12(f) allows a court to strike an insufficient defense or material that is redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous. The court concluded that Ninth Circuit precedent requires denial of a party’s motion to strike filed after that party has answered the complaint, unless the court acts on its own initiative or no responsive pleading is permitted. Because Eddie Bauer filed its motion years after answering the complaint, the court held that the motion to strike was untimely and denied it on that basis.

The court nevertheless considered the request under Rule 12(c). It found that the expedited briefing and hearing did not delay the scheduled trial. The court also stated that, even if Eddie Bauer’s reliance on deposition evidence made the motion resemble a summary-adjudication motion, the court had discretion to consider the materials because Heredia had notice of them.

PAGA Manageability

The court rejected Eddie Bauer’s argument that the PAGA claim should be stricken as unmanageable. PAGA allows an aggrieved employee to seek civil penalties on behalf of that employee and other current or former employees for alleged Labor Code violations. The court explained that PAGA actions are different from class actions and that PAGA plaintiffs do not have to satisfy the requirements for class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.

The court held that PAGA does not impose a manageability requirement. The fact that Heredia would need to prove a Labor Code violation for each employee for whom she sought civil penalties did not mean she could not bring the claim. It meant only that she might ultimately fail to prove violations for some or all of the employees. The court also noted that Heredia had presented a trial plan identifying ten witnesses, seven of whom were Eddie Bauer employees, including Heredia.

The court therefore denied Eddie Bauer’s motion to strike the PAGA claim on manageability grounds.

PAGA Notice and Narrowed Time Period

PAGA requires an aggrieved employee or representative to give written notice to California’s Labor and Workforce Development Agency and the employer identifying the Labor Code provisions allegedly violated and the facts and theories supporting the alleged violations.

The court held that Heredia was not changing her theory of liability or the Labor Code provisions allegedly violated. She was instead narrowing the claim to a particular period before 2017. The court found no cited authority prohibiting that type of narrowing and concluded that the cases relied on by Eddie Bauer involved changes to the theory of liability rather than a narrower time period.

The court therefore denied Eddie Bauer’s motion to strike the PAGA claim on the ground that Heredia had not exhausted administrative remedies for the narrowed period.

Disposition

The court denied Eddie Bauer’s Motion at ECF 83.