DiMercurio v. Equilon Enterprises LLC

Background

The plaintiffs were operators at a Shell refinery owned by Equilon Enterprises LLC. They alleged that Shell’s standby practices violated California wage-and-hour laws, California’s Unfair Competition Law, and the Private Attorneys General Act.

Under the standby system, operators on 12-hour shifts could be assigned standby periods from 5:30 a.m. to 7:00 a.m. for day shifts or from 5:30 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. for night shifts. They did not have to call Shell or be at the refinery during that period, but they had to remain reachable, respond promptly if contacted, and arrive at the refinery within two hours if instructed to cover an absence. Operators could face discipline for failing to answer or failing to arrive on time. Operators who were not called in received no pay for the standby period.

The plaintiffs sought certification of a class covering operators who worked at the refinery from June 4, 2015, through January 31, 2020, and a waiting-time-penalties subclass covering operators who separated from employment during that period.

Class-certification standard

The court applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. It considered whether the proposed class was sufficiently numerous, whether it shared common legal or factual questions, whether the named plaintiffs’ claims were typical, and whether the plaintiffs and their lawyers would adequately represent the class. It also considered whether common questions predominated over individual questions and whether a class action was superior to other ways of resolving the dispute.

Claims certified

The court held that the plaintiffs satisfied these requirements for three claims:

The certified class was: all operators working at the Equilon Enterprises LLC refinery doing business as Shell Oil Products US in Martinez, California, who were scheduled for standby at any time from June 4, 2015, through January 31, 2020.

The court found that the estimated class size of about 300 operators satisfied the numerosity requirement. It also found commonality and typicality because the claims arose from Shell’s alleged uniform standby policy. The court found the named plaintiffs and proposed class counsel adequate, and appointed Weinberg, Roger & Rosenfeld A.P.C. and Leonard Carder LLP as class counsel. Finally, the court found that a class action was a superior and manageable way to resolve the common legal question concerning whether Shell’s standby periods constituted reporting time.

Waiting-time-penalties claim

The court held that common questions generally predominated for the waiting-time-penalties claim because it derived from the reporting-time-pay claim. However, the court identified issues concerning which operators separated from employment during the relevant period and whether the named plaintiffs adequately represented operators who were discharged rather than voluntarily leaving.

The court noted that the plaintiffs’ position at oral argument—that all operators had separated through quitting, termination, or the refinery sale—differed from their motion and relied on facts not alleged in the operative complaint. The court therefore denied without prejudice the plaintiffs’ motion to certify the waiting-time-penalties claim. It allowed the plaintiffs to submit a proposed Second Amended Complaint addressing that claim, along with a brief explaining why amendment and certification should be allowed.

Judicial notice

The court took judicial notice of a prior state-court order denying class certification because it was a public record not subject to reasonable dispute. The court also took judicial notice of the existence and contents of a prior settlement, but not of that settlement’s legal effect on the merits of this case.

Sealing motions and other request

The court denied the plaintiffs’ motion to file four documents under seal because Equilon, which had designated the documents confidential, had not filed the declaration required to establish that the information was sealable.

The court granted in part Equilon’s motion to file a deposition under seal. It permitted specified excerpts discussing a disciplinary grievance to be filed under seal, but the opinion did not grant sealing for the entire deposition.

The court denied as moot the plaintiffs’ request to disregard the portion of Equilon’s opposition exceeding the page limit.

Disposition

The court granted in part the motion for class certification. It certified the reporting-time-pay, wage-statement, and unfair-business-practices claims for the defined class; denied without prejudice certification of the waiting-time-penalties claim; appointed the proposed class counsel; denied the plaintiffs’ sealing motion; and granted in part Equilon’s sealing motion. Judge Jacquelyn Scott Corley did not decide the ultimate merits of whether the standby practices violated California law.