Use this button to switch between dark and light mode.

Experience a New Era in Legal Research with Free Access to Lexis+

Pena v. Taylor Farms Pac., Inc.

United States District Court for the Eastern District of California

February 9, 2015, Decided; February 10, 2015, Filed

No. 2:13-cv-01282-KJM-AC

Opinion

 [*203]  ORDER

The plaintiffs, hourly workers, move for class certification against their current and former employers. Pls.' Mot. Class Cert., ECF No. 56.1 Three defendants, Taylor Farms Pacific, Inc. (TFP), Abel Mendoza, Inc. (AMI), and SlingShot Connections, LLC (SlingShot), oppose their motion. Def. TFP's Opp'n Class Cert. (TFP Opp'n), ECF No. 92; Def. AMI's Opp'n Class Cert. (AMI Opp'n), ECF No. 100; Def. SlingShot Opp'n Class Cert. (SlingShot Opp'n), ECF No. 102. Plaintiffs have replied. Pls.' Reply Class Cert. (Reply), ECF No. 112. The court heard argument on November 22, 2013. Patricia Oliver and Stuart Chandler appeared for the plaintiffs. Jesse Cripps and Sarah Zenewicz appeared for defendant TFP; Hope Case and Luanne Sacks appeared by telephone for defendant SlingShot; and Michael Claiborne appeared for defendant AMI. As explained below, the motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Claims and Previous Orders

TFP operates two food production and processing plants in Tracy, California. Mem. 5. The plaintiffs used to work in these plants. Id. They seek to represent a class of the defendants' current and former employees and bring employment claims. Seventh Am. Compl. (Compl.) 11-25, ECF No. 101.2 Their claims arise from three core allegations: that the defendants did not pay them for time spent putting on and taking off mandatory personal protective equipment, that is "donning and doffing" the equipment, see, e.g., id. ¶¶ 31, 33; that the defendants did not allow them rest breaks and meal  [*204]  breaks as required by California labor law, see, e.g., id. ¶¶ 33, 47-50; and that they did not receive paychecks in the form and at the time California law requires, see, e.g., id. ¶¶ 68, 76. Specifically, the plaintiffs' plead eight claims:

1. For [**4]  compensation for all hours worked under California Labor Code § 204 and California Code of Regulations title 8, § 11040(11)(A), Compl. ¶¶ 29-35;

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

305 F.R.D. 197 *; 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16180 **; 90 Fed. R. Serv. 3d (Callaghan) 1661

MARIA DEL CARMEN PENA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. TAYLOR FARMS PACIFIC, INC., d/b/a TAYLOR FARMS, et al., Defendants.

Subsequent History: As Amended February 18, 2015.

Clarified by Pena v. Taylor Farms Pac., Inc., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 181380 (E.D. Cal., Mar. 30, 2015)

Affirmed by, in part Del Carmen Pena v. Taylor Farms Pac., Inc., 690 Fed. Appx. 526, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 7882, 2017 WL 1735315 (9th Cir. Cal., May 3, 2017)

Settled by, Motion granted by Pena v. Taylor Farms Pac., Inc., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45326 (E.D. Cal., Mar. 10, 2021)

Prior History: Pena v. Taylor Farms Pac., Inc., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106001 (E.D. Cal., July 26, 2013)

CORE TERMS

subclass, meal, employees, Handbook, breaks, rest break, certification, predominate, plaintiffs', records, paychecks, class action, meal period, class member, doffing, putative class member, timekeeping, waiting time, common question, includes, damages, hourly, shifts, class certification, thirty minutes, common issue, declarations, depositions, minutes, wages