Trevino v. Golden State FC LLC ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JUAN TREVINO, et al., Lead Case No.: 1:18-cv-00120-DAD-BAM (Trevino) 12 Plaintiffs, Member Case Nos.: 13 v. 1. 1:18-cv-00121-DAD-BAM (Palma) 14 GOLDEN STATE FC LLC, et al., 2. 1:18-cv-00567-DAD-BAM (Avalos) 15 Defendants. 3. 1:18-cv-01176-DAD-BAM (Hagman) 16 4. 1:17-cv-01300-DAD-BAM (Ward) 17 ORDER DECLINING TO ADOPT FINDINGS 18 AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND REFERRING THE PENDING MOTION FOR 19 CLASS CERTIFICATION BACK TO THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE 20 21 22 Plaintiffs Juan Trevino, Christopher Ward, Linda Quinteros, Romeo Palma, Alberto 23 Gianini and Juan C. Avalos, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, bring this 24 consolidated class action against defendants Golden State FC, LLC (now known as Amazon.com 25 Services LLC), Amazon.com, Inc., and Amazon Fulfillment Services, Inc. (now known as 26 Amazon.com Services LLC) (collectively, “Amazon”). Plaintiffs moved for class certification 27 pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3). (Doc. Nos. 96, 98.) The motion 28 was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe for issuance of findings and 1 recommendations in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and (C). (Doc. No. 112.) 2 Amazon relatedly moved to exclude the testimony and opinions of plaintiffs’ expert Dr. Brian 3 Kriegler, which plaintiffs had submitted in support of their pending motion for class certification. 4 (Doc. No. 125.) Amazon’s motion was heard in conjunction with plaintiffs’ motion for class 5 certification. (Doc. No. 126.) 6 On June 8, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, 7 recommending that plaintiffs’ motion for class certification be granted in part and denied in part 8 and that Amazon’s motion to exclude plaintiffs’ expert Dr. Kriegler be denied as having been 9 rendered moot. (Doc. No. 166.) Those findings and recommendations were served on the parties 10 and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after 11 service. (Id.) Plaintiffs filed objections on June 22, 2021, and Amazon filed a response to those 12 objections on July 2, 2021. (Doc. Nos. 168, 170.) Additionally, plaintiffs filed a notice of 13 supplemental authority on August 9, 2021, in which they pointed out that on August 3, 2021, the 14 Ninth Circuit vacated its original decision in Olean Wholesale Grocery Cooperative, Inc. v. 15 Bumble Bee Foods LLC, 993 F.3d 774 (9th Cir. 2021) (Olean I) and granted a rehearing en banc. 16 (Doc. No. 171.) Plaintiffs contend that the pending findings and recommendations rely 17 extensively on the now vacated decision in Olean I, which had vacated and remanded the district 18 court’s granting of motions for class certification, in recommending the denial of certification as 19 to certain classes in this case. (Id.) On August 23, 2021, defendants filed a response to plaintiffs’ 20 notice of supplemental authority, in which they argued that the reasoning and analysis in the 21 pending findings and recommendations remained correct even without reliance on the Olean I 22 decision. (Doc. No. 172 at 2.) 23 On August 27, 2021, the undersigned issued an order staying this case pending the final 24 decision from the Ninth Circuit in Olean. (Doc. No. 173.) The parties were directed to file a 25 status report with the court within fourteen (14) days of the Ninth Circuit’s issuance of a decision 26 in Olean Wholesale Grocery Cooperative, Inc. v. Bumble Bee Foods LLC (No. 19-56514) (Olean 27 II). (Id.) On April 8, 2022, the Ninth Circuit issued the en banc opinion in Olean II. See Olean 28 Wholesale Grocery v. Bumble Bee Foods LLC 31 F.4th 651 (9th Cir. 2022) (en banc). On 1 | rehearing en banc the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of class certification. □□□ In 2 | light of this new en banc opinion, on April 12, 2022, plaintiffs filed a notice with the court 3 || requesting that the court “lift its stay and consider and apply Olean II’s holdings in its de novo 4 | review of the Magistrate’s Findings and Recommendations and Plaintiffs’ Objections thereto.” 5 | (Doc. No. 179 at 3.) On April 13, 2022, the parties filed a joint status report, in which defendants 6 | requested the opportunity to file supplemental briefing addressing the decision in Olean IT. (Doc. 7 | No. 180 at 4.) As a result of the potential changed circumstances stemming from the Olean IT 8 | decision as it applies to the pending findings and recommendations, the court will not adopt the 9 | findings and recommendations at this time, but instead will refer this matter back to the assigned 10 | magistrate judge for consideration of further briefing and the issuance of amended findings and 11 | recommendations if necessary. 12 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C©), this court has conducted a 13 | de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including the objections, 14 | the undersigned declines to adopt the pending findings and recommendations at this time. 15 | Instead, out of an abundance of caution, the pending motion for class certification (Doc. Nos. 96, 16 | 98) will be referred back to the magistrate judge for further consideration in light of the Ninth 17 | Circuit’s opinion in Olean IT. 18 Accordingly, 19 1. The court declines to adopt the findings and recommendations issued on June 8, 20 2021 (Doc. No. 166); and 21 2. Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification (Doc. Nos. 96, 98) and defendants’ motion 22 to exclude the testimony of Dr. Kriegler (Doc. No. 125) are referred back to the 23 assigned magistrate judge for the issuance of amended findings and 24 recommendations in light of the Ninth Circuit’s en banc decision in Olean II. 25 | IT IS SO ORDERED. me □ °° | Dated: _May 4, 2022 Vile A Drag 27 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 28