![if gte IE 9]><![endif]><![if gte IE 9]><![endif]><![if gte IE 9]><![endif]>
Thank You For Submiting Feedback!
Court of Appeal of California, Sixth Appellate District
October 24, 2022, Opinion Filed
BAMATTRE-MANOUKIAN, Acting P. J.—
Plaintiffs Delmer Camp and Adriana Correa filed a putative class action for unpaid wages against defendant Home Depot U.S.A, Inc. (Home Depot). Plaintiffs alleged that Home Depot's electronic timekeeping system captured each minute worked by employees, but that due to Home Depot's quarter-hour rounding policy, employees were paid for less time than reflected in Home Depot's timekeeping system.
Home Depot moved for summary judgment on plaintiffs' complaint. Home Depot argued that plaintiff Correa did not have standing to bring a claim for unpaid wages because she did not lose any wages as a result of the rounding policy. Although it acknowledged that plaintiff Camp had lost a total [**2] of 470 minutes over approximately four and a half years due to the rounding policy, Home Depot contended it was still entitled to summary judgment because its rounding policy was neutral on its face, neutral as applied, and otherwise lawful under See's Candy Shops, Inc. v. Superior Court (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 889 [148 Cal. Rptr. 3d 690] (See's Candy). The trial court granted the motion, finding that Home Depot's rounding policy met the standard articulated in See's Candy. Specifically, the trial court found that Home [*644] Depot's rounding policy “is neutral on its face and is used in such a manner that it will not result, over a period of time, in failure to compensate employees properly for all the time they have actually worked.” The trial court also observed that under Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962) 57 Cal.2d 450, 455 [20 Cal. Rptr. 321, 369 P.2d 937] (Auto Equity), the trial court was “not free to disregard binding appellate authority and reach a different conclusion.”
On appeal, plaintiff Correa concedes that she was overpaid and cannot state a claim for unpaid wages. We will dismiss her appeal as abandoned.
Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.
84 Cal. App. 5th 638 *; 2022 Cal. App. LEXIS 882 **; 300 Cal. Rptr. 3d 548; 2022 WL 13874360
DELMER CAMP et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC., Defendant and Respondent.
Notice: REVIEW GRANTED. See Cal. Rules of Court, rules 8.1105 and 8.1115 (and corresponding Comment, par. 2, concerning rule 8.1115(e)(3)), Feb. 1, 2023, S277518.
Subsequent History: Time for Granting or Denying Review Extended Camp v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 2023 Cal. LEXIS 135 (Cal., Jan. 18, 2023)
Review granted by Camp v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 2023 Cal. LEXIS 530, 2023 WL 1458038 (Cal., Feb. 1, 2023)
Request granted Camp v. Home Depot U.S.A., 2023 Cal. LEXIS 739 (Cal., Feb. 15, 2023)
Prior History: [**1] Superior Court of Santa Clara County, No. 19CV344872, Patricia M. Lucas, Judge.
rounding, employees, minutes, wages, wage order, captured, compensate, worktime, punches, regulation, quarter-hour, federal regulation, hours worked, de minimis, pay period, records, time-rounding, timekeeping, nearest, calculating, unpaid wages, minimum wage, meal period, trial court, circumstances, shifts, small amount, construe, Manual, summary judgment
Civil Procedure, Judgments, Summary Judgment, Burdens of Proof, Evidence, Inferences & Presumptions, Inferences, Burdens of Proof, Movant Persuasion & Proof, Entitlement as Matter of Law, Nonmovant Persuasion & Proof, Appeals, Standards of Review, De Novo Review, Appellate Review, Standards of Review, Business & Corporate Compliance, Wage & Hour Laws, Scope & Definitions, Overtime & Work Periods, Governments, Legislation, Interpretation, Administrative Proceedings, Rulemaking Authority, Minimum Wage, Labor & Employment Law, Regular Rate, Administrative Law, Agency Rulemaking, Rule Application & Interpretation, Binding Effect, State Proceedings, Courts, Judicial Precedent