Moreno v. Dash Lube ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ROBERTO MORENO, individually and Case No.: 18cv1922 DMS (AHG) on behalf of all others similarly situated, 12 ORDER GRANTING RENEWED Plaintiff, 13 JOINT MOTION TO DECERTIFY v. THE WAGE STATEMENT CLASS 14 DASH LUBE, GHARDASH 15 ENTERPRISES, INC., KAYLA CORP., 16 collectively d/b/a as Jiffy Lube, PAYAM RYAN GHARDASH and POYA PAUL 17 GHARDASH, 18 Defendants. 19 20 On December 13, 2019, this Court certified the following class on Plaintiffs’ wage 21 statement claim: “All current and former hourly service technicians who worked for 22 Defendants at any of their Jiffy Lube automotive oil change shops at any time from August 23 17, 2014 through judgment.” (ECF No. 49.) After that ruling, the parties engaged in 24 numerous and lengthy settlement negotiations, and on July 24, 2020, they filed a Notice of 25 Settlement. (ECF No. 62.) In that Notice, the parties reported they would be filing a joint 26 motion to decertify the Wage Statement Class “within ten business days after execution of 27 the formal settlement agreement.” (Id.) That motion was filed on November 4, 2020, and 28 in that motion, the parties asserted that “Defendants’ precarious financial condition, in 1 combination with the very real possibility that Defendants would prevail on the issue of 2 liability, establish that good cause exists with respect to the Parties’ request to decertify the 3 wage statement class.” (ECF No. 68 at 8.) The Court disagreed with that assertion, and 4 denied the motion. (See ECF No. 71.) 5 The parties have now filed a renewed motion to decertify the wage statement class. 6 In this motion, the parties continue to assert that Defendants’ financial condition weighs in 7 favor of decertification, and they have now filed evidence in support. The parties 8 abandoned their argument about the merits of their wage statement claim, and now argue 9 Plaintiffs lack Article III standing to pursue this claim, and that after further review of the 10 evidence, the requirements of Rule 23 are not met with respect to this claim. 11 As set out in the Court’s previous order, the legal basis for the parties’ motion is 12 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(1)(C), which states, “[a]n order that grants or denies 13 class certification may be altered or amended before final judgment.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 14 23(c)(1)(C). The standard for decertification is the same as it is with certification: “a 15 district court must be satisfied that the requirements of Rules 23(a) and (b) are met to allow 16 plaintiffs to maintain the action on a representative basis.” Makaeff v. Trump Univ., LLC, 17 309 F.R.D. 631, 635 (S.D. Cal. 2015) (citing Marlo v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 639 F.3d 18 942, 947 (9th Cir. 2011)). After reviewing the parties’ renewed motion, the Court finds 19 the requirements of Rule 23 are no longer met with respect to the wage statement class. 20 Specifically, there is no commonality between the class members, as the class is currently 21 defined. Of the current and former hourly technicians included in the current class, the 22 evidence reflects only eleven of them received a wage statement that did not comply with 23 the statute. It appears the wage statements provided to the remaining class members were 24 compliant with the statute, which destroys any commonality between the class as a whole. 25 In light of this finding, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 26 1. The parties’ renewed motion to decertify the wage statement class is granted. 27 2. The parties shall not be required to issue notice of decertification to the class 28 members, as there is no indication that class certification of Plaintiff’s wage statement 1 ||claim received any publicity, notice of class certification was not disseminated to class 2 ||members, and there is no indication that any class member learned about Plaintiff's wage 3 || statement claim or that the claim was certified. 4 Within three days of the entry of this Order, the parties shall jointly submit to the 5 || Court a proposed Scheduling Order regulating the completion and submission of settlement 6 || papers and related approval motions and hearings, or a stipulated dismissal of this action. 7 Dated: April 29, 2021 em Dh 8 an Yn. Hon. Dana M. Sabraw, Chief Judge ? United States District Court 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28