Ortiz v. Amazon.com LLC

Background

Defendants Amazon.com LLC and Golden State FC LLC moved to strike or dismiss Michael Ortiz’s claim for penalties under California’s Private Attorneys General Act, commonly called a PAGA claim. The defendants argued that Ortiz’s representative action was unmanageable. Ortiz stated that he intended to seek relief on behalf of Level 4 Shift Managers, a group he said included no more than 150 people.

The court noted that it had previously addressed other motions in the case, including a partial summary-judgment ruling and a denial of class certification. Those earlier rulings were referenced for context; this order addressed only the motion concerning the PAGA claim.

Legal Standards and Analysis

The defendants relied on Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(c) and 12(f), as well as the court’s inherent authority to manage its cases. Because the defendants relied on the record from the class-certification proceedings, the court concluded that the motion was outside the proper scope of a motion for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c). The court also concluded that Rule 12(f), which permits certain material to be stricken from a pleading, was not the appropriate procedure for resolving the motion.

The court instead evaluated the motion under its inherent authority to manage cases. It rejected the defendants’ argument that Ortiz had to comply with the requirements for a federal class action under Rule 23. Relying on its earlier decision in a related matter, the court held that Ortiz was not required to satisfy Rule 23 to pursue the PAGA claim and denied the motion in part on that basis.

The court then considered whether it could strike a PAGA claim as unmanageable under its inherent authority. It recognized that courts had reached different conclusions about whether such authority exists and noted that this case presented individualized issues concerning whether Level 4 Shift Managers primarily performed duties covered by the executive exemption. The court did not make a final determination that Ortiz’s PAGA claim was manageable or unmanageable.

Disposition

The court denied the defendants’ motion without prejudice. It required Ortiz to provide the defendants with a proposed trial plan for the PAGA claim by January 8, 2021. The parties were required to meet and confer about that proposal. If they could not reach agreement and the defendants continued to argue that the PAGA action was unmanageable, they could renew their motion and explain why the proposed trial plan did not resolve their concerns.