Opinion
2:14-cv-05576 AB (JCX) 2:14-cv-05748 AB (JCx)
12-20-2021
TRINIDAD LOPEZ, AMANE PEREZ, NATHAN FESLER; GINA McPHERSON; NANCY LEE YANG; ANTHONY CASTILLO; and JENNIFER DOUD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants. MARISELA BEAS, GREGORY RUTKOWSKI, and PAMELA LEWIS, individually and on behalf of all otherssimilarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, GOLDEN EAGLE INSURANCE CORPORATION; SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Defendants.
Assigned to the Honorable André Birotte, Jr.
Trial Dated: October 21, 2021
[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT
JUDGMENT
These are consolidated actions brought by Plaintiffs Trinidad Lopez, Amane Perez, Marisela Beas, Pamela Lewis, Gregory Rutkowski, Gina McPherson, Nathan Fesler, Jennifer Doud, Nancy Lee Yang, and Anthony Castillo (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) against Defendants Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Golden Eagle Insurance Corporation and Safeco Insurance Company of America (collectively “Defendants”), asserting the following causes of action: (1) Failure to Pay Overtime; (2) Waiting-Time Penalties; (3) Failure to Furnish Timely and Accurate Wage Statements; (4) Failure to Provide Meal Periods; (5) Failure to Provide Rest Periods; (6) Imposition of a Constructive Trust; (7) Unjust Enrichment; (8) Unfair Business Practices Pursuant to Cal. Business and Professions Code §§ 17200 et seq.; and (9) Civil Penalties for Violations of the Private Attorneys General Act.
On September 24, 2018, the Court dismissed Plaintiffs' third cause of action for failure to furnish timely and accurate wage statements and granted Plaintiffs' motion to certify a class. [Dkt. 327.]
On July 25, 2019, the Court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants against Plaintiff Nancy Lee Yang and certain class members who had entered into release agreements prior to the action or after the class was certified. [Dkt. 482.]
On February 11, 2020, the Court entered an order decertifying the class and striking Plaintiffs' ninth cause of action for Civil Penalties for Violations of the Private Attorneys General Act. [Dkt. 528.]
On October 21, 2021, the case proceeded to trial before a jury, with the Honorable André Birotte, Jr. presiding, on the remaining claims of Plaintiffs Lopez, Perez, Beas, Lewis, Rutkowski, McPherson, Fesler, Doud, and the Estate of Anthony Castillo (having substituted in for Mr. Castillo following his passing). On November 2, 2021, the jury rendered a verdict [Dkt. 663] as follows:
NATHAN FESLER
Administrative Exemption Defense
1. Did Defendants prove that Nathan Fesler's work met each of the requirements for the administrative exemption?
_X_ YES __NO.
JENNIFER DOUD Administrative Exemption Defense
1. Did Defendants prove that Jennifer Doud's work met each of the requirements for the administrative exemption?
_X_ YES __NO.
TRINIDAD LOPEZ Administrative Exemption Defense
1. Did Defendants prove that Trinidad Lopez's work met each of the requirements for the administrative exemption?
_X_ YES __NO.
GINA MCPHERSON Administrative Exemption Defense
1. Did Defendants prove that Gina McPherson's work met each of the requirements for the administrative exemption?
_X_ YES __NO.
PAMELA LEWS Administrative Exemption Defense
1. Did Defendants prove that Pamela Lewis's work met each of the requirements for the administrative exemption?
_X_ YES __NO.
MARISELA BEAS Administrative Exemption Defense
1. Did Defendants prove that Marisela Beas's work met each of the requirements for the administrative exemption?
_X_ YES __NO.
GREGORY RUTKOWSKI Administrative Exemption Defense
1. Did Defendants prove that Gregory Rutkowski's work met each of the requirements for the administrative exemption?
_X_ YES __NO.
AMANE PEREZ Administrative Exemption Defense
1. Did Defendants prove that Amane Perez's work met each of the requirements for the administrative exemption?
_X_ YES __NO.
ANTHONY CASTILLO Administrative Exemption Defense
1. Did Defendants prove that Anthony Castillo's work met each of the requirements for the administrative exemption?
_X_ YES __NO.
THEREFORE, the Court enters judgment in favor of Defendants and orders that Plaintiffs recover nothing, and that Defendants shall recover costs from Plaintiffs in an amount to be determined on application.