Valencia v. Vf Outdoor

Valencia v. Vf Outdoor

Opinion

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO GRANT DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DENY CLASS CERTIFICATION

FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE

Before the Court is Defendant VF Outdoor, LLC's motion to deny class certification, filed September 3, 2021.¹ (Doc. 53.) After being granted an extension of time (see Doc. 60), Plaintiff Briana Valencia filed her opposition on October 20, 2021, and Defendant replied on October 27, 2021. (Docs. 61 & 62.) The undersigned reviewed the motion, opposition, reply, and all supporting papers, and found the matter suitable for decision without oral argument pursuant to U.S. District Court for the Eastern District [*2]  of California's Local Rule 230(g). The hearing set for November 3, 2021, was therefore VACATED. (Doc. 63.)

For the reasons set forth below, the Court RECOMMENDS that Defendant's motion to deny class certification be GRANTED based on the classes as currently defined and proposed to be represented by Plaintiff Briana Valencia.

I. BACKGROUND

Defendant VF Outdoor, LLC ("Defendant" or "VF Outdoor") is an apparel, footwear, and accessories company that owns and distributes several clothing brands, including "Vans," "Timberland," "The North Face," "Dickies," and "Jansport." (Doc. 1-1 ¶ 11; Doc. 53-1 at 9; Doc. 61 at 10.) Defendant's products are shipped to various distribution centers located in California and then distributed to various retail establishments within the State. (Doc. 61 at 8.) Defendant currently employs Plaintiff Briana Valencia ("Plaintiff") as an hourly, non-exempt employee at its distribution center in Visalia, California. (Doc. 1-1 ¶ 7; Doc. 53-1 at 7; Doc. 61 at 10.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendant requires its employees, upon arrival and prior to clocking-in, to undergo a "security check wherein their bags are searched" and thereafter walk to their assigned workstations. (Doc. 1-1 [*3]  ¶ 25; Doc. 61 at 12.) Plaintiff also alleges that Defendant requires its employees, after clocking-out for the day or for a meal period, to walk to the front of the building and undergo a "post-shift security check." (Id. ¶ 26; Doc. 61 at 12.) According to Plaintiff, these two processes take approximately 20 minutes each for employees to complete, for which they are not compensated. (Id. ¶¶ 25-26; Doc. 61 at 12.)

On August 27, 2019, Plaintiff filed this putative class and representative action in Alameda County Superior Court, alleging: (1) failure to pay minimum wages; (2) failure to pay overtime compensation; (3) failure to provide rest periods; (4) failure to provide meal periods; (5) failure to pay wages owed in a timely manner; (6) failure to provide accurate wage statements; (7) unfair business practices in violation of California's Unfair Competition Law; and (8) penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act. (See Doc. 1-1 ¶¶ 71-157.) Plaintiff ultimately seeks to certify classes under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 comprised of:

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