Valenzuela v. Best-Line Shades, Inc.
- Jacquelyn Corley
- 3:19-cv-07293
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Valenzuela v. Best-Line Shades, Judge Corley ordered plaintiffs to explain how their default-judgment request could proceed for unidentified class and collective members.
The named plaintiffs, the proposed or certified class and FLSA collective members, and the defaulted defendants.
What happened
Dolores Valenzuela, Adela Flores, and Raymunda Menjivar sued their former employer and others for allegedly unpaid wages and penalties under federal and California wage laws. The court had previously approved their class and collective action, but the defendants did not provide a list of potential class members and later defaulted.
Because the plaintiffs had not sent required notices or shown how they could identify the other employees, the court questioned whether the case could continue as a class and collective action. The plaintiffs’ request sought a default judgment and damages for unnamed employees, based partly on estimates.
The court vacated the scheduled hearing, ordered the plaintiffs to explain in writing by May 23, 2022 how the case could proceed, and held the default-judgment motion in abeyance while considering that explanation. Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley issued the order.
The detailed version
- Valenzuela v. Best-Line Shades, Inc. · No. 3:19-cv-07293
- Jacquelyn Corley
- May 2, 2022
Background
Dolores Valenzuela, Adela Flores, and Raymunda Menjivar brought a wage-and-hour class and collective action against their former employer, Best-Line Shades, Inc., Best-Line, Inc., and Jill Schaffer, identified in the opinion as the owner and president of Best-Line Shades, Inc. They sought unpaid wages and penalties under the Fair Labor Standards Act and California labor laws.
On August 10, 2021, the court granted the plaintiffs’ request to certify a class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) and a collective action under Section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The court later ordered the defendants to provide a copy of the class list so that notice could be sent. The defendants did not comply, their defense counsel was relieved, and they failed to obtain new counsel or appear without a lawyer in Ms. Schaffer’s case. The court then entered the defendants’ default.
Court’s concerns
The plaintiffs filed a motion for default judgment. The court noted that members of a certified Rule 23(b)(3) class must receive notice, and members of an FLSA collective must receive court-approved notice advising them that they must affirmatively opt in. Because the defendants had not provided a class list, the plaintiffs had not sent notice to the Rule 23 class or the FLSA collective.
The court also observed that the plaintiffs did not appear to have attempted to determine the identities of the class members through another method. Their motion relied on estimates about the number of employees, yet sought default judgment and damages for unidentified class members. The motion did not address or explain these issues.
Order
The court vacated the May 5, 2022 hearing and ordered the plaintiffs to show cause—that is, to explain in writing—how the action could proceed as a Rule 23 class action and an FLSA collective action when they had not shown a way to identify employees other than the named plaintiffs. The plaintiffs’ written response was due May 23, 2022.
The court held the motion for default judgment in abeyance pending resolution of the order to show cause. This order did not grant or deny the motion for default judgment.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.