HOLDINGS: [1]-In this ADEA action, defendants’ motion to dismiss was denied because defendants failed to raise their argument that the employees’ proposed collective and class definitions were not appropriately limited temporally in its motion to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint (TAC), even though the TAC and Fourth Amended Complaint included the same five named plaintiffs, …
HOLDINGS: [1]-Plaintiff’s California Endless Chain Scheme Law (ECL), California Unfair Competition Law claim (UCL), and unjust enrichment claims were time-barred since she did not file her complaint until 2017, her ECL and UCL claims accrued at the earliest in 2007 or, at the latest, in 2009, her ECL claim was subject to Cal. Code Civ. …
ISSUE: Whether the court’s denial of class certification meant that the employee could not pursue a representative California Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) claim HOLDINGS: [1]-The employee’s PAGA claim was not subject to the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23; [2]-Defendant’s reliance on the Shady Grove decision was unavailing; [3]-Defendant’s claim was incorrect that …