Valenzuela v. Best-Line Shades, Inc.

Background

Dolores Valenzuela, Adela Flores, and Raymunda Menjivar brought a proposed wage-and-hour class and collective action against their former employers, Best-Line Shades, Inc. and Best-Line, Inc., and against owner and president Jill Schaffer. The claims arose under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and California labor laws. The Best-Line entities had closed their curtain-manufacturing facility in Richmond, California, in March 2020, and the opinion states that the entities were defunct. The defendants did not file an opposition to the certification motion.

The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants automatically deducted 30 minutes from employees’ wages for meal periods without maintaining corresponding time records. They also alleged that employees were not paid for work during the two weeks before the facility stopped operating and that employees did not receive all required final wages or accurate wage statements.

Rule 23 Class Certification

The court certified a California class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3), covering all non-exempt employees employed by Best-Line Shades, Inc. and Best-Line, Inc. in California at any time from November 5, 2015, through March 17, 2020. The court also certified three subclasses concerning meal-period automatic deductions, wage statements, and final pay.

The court found that the proposed class met Rule 23(a)’s requirements. It found numerosity because the plaintiffs estimated approximately 30 class members, with the number possibly as high as 46. It found commonality because the claims involved common questions about the defendants’ alleged policies and practices, including meal-period deductions, final wages, and wage statements. It found typicality because the named plaintiffs alleged injuries from those same policies and practices. It also found adequate representation because there did not appear to be conflicts between the named plaintiffs and other class members, and the court found class counsel experienced in wage-and-hour class actions.

The court further found that common issues predominated under Rule 23(b)(3). It relied on the defendants’ discovery responses concerning unpaid work from March 4 through March 17, 2020; declarations concerning missing or inaccurate wage statements and unpaid amounts; and evidence of automatic 30-minute meal-period deductions without supporting meal-period records. The court also found that a class action was the superior method because it could reduce costs, promote consistent results, and use common evidence to address several claims.

FLSA Collective Action

The court conditionally certified an FLSA collective action under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). The proposed collective covers non-exempt employees employed by Best-Line Shades, Inc. and Best-Line, Inc. in California from March 4 through March 17, 2020, who worked before March 17, 2020, and did not receive timely final payment of all overtime wages on their final checks.

At this initial notice stage, the court applied the FLSA’s relatively lenient standard and found that the proposed participants were similarly situated. The court concluded that the evidence indicated they were subject to a single alleged unlawful policy. Conditional certification allows court-approved notice to be sent to potentially eligible employees; it does not finally decide the claims or permanently establish the collective’s scope.

Order

The court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for certification of the class and collective action under Rule 23(b)(3) and FLSA § 216(b). It appointed Valenzuela, Flores, and Menjivar as class representatives and Mallison & Martinez as class counsel. The plaintiffs were ordered to submit a proposed class notice and notice plan by August 27, 2021, and to move for summary judgment by November 18, 2021. The order disposed of Docket No. 47.