Preview
1 JESSICA RIGGIN (SBN 281712)
jriggin@rukinhyland.com
2 VALERIE BRENDER (SBN 298224)
vbrender@rukinhyland.com
3 RUKIN HYLAND & RIGGIN LLP
4 1939 Harrison Street, Suite 290
Oakland, CA 94612
5 Telephone: (415) 421-1800
Facsimile: (415) 421-1700
6
MATTHEW HELLAND (SBN 250451)
7 helland@nka.com
8 DANIEL BROME (SBN 278915)
dbrome@nka.com
9 NICHOLS KASTER, LLP
235 Montgomery St., Suite 810
10 San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 277-7235
11
Facsimile: (415) 277-7238
12
13 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
14
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
15 COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
16
17 ALIDA MAZARIEGOS, PAULA Case No. 20-CIV-04267
18 GONZALEZ, and JAIME AMAYA
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING
19 Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves PLAINTIFFS’ RENEWED MOTION FOR
and all others similarly situated, CLASS CERTIFICATION
20
v.
Judge: Hon. Nancy L. Fineman
21 Dept.: 04
22 VANGUARD CLEANING SYSTEMS,
INC.; RR FRANCHISING, INC., D/B/A
23 VANGUARD CLEANING SYSTEMS OF
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA AND D/B/A
24 VANGUARD CLEANING SYSTEMS OF
25 NORTHERN CALIFORNIA; BUDDHA
CAPITAL CORPORATION, D/B/A
26 VANGUARD CLEANING SYSTEMS OF
SACRAMENTO, D/B/A VANGUARD
27 CLEANING SYSTEMS OF THE
CENTRAL VALLEY, AND D/B/A
28
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ RENEWED MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION AND
APPOINTMENT OF CLASS COUNSEL
1
VANGUARD CLEANING SYSTEMS OF
2 THE CENTRAL COAST; AND WINE
COUNTRY VENTURES, INC. D/B/A
3 VANGUARD CLEANING SYSTEMS OF
THE NORTH BAY, AND DOES 1
4
THROUGH 10, INCLUSIVE,
5 Defendants.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ RENEWED MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION AND
APPOINTMENT OF CLASS COUNSEL
1 Plaintiffs’ renewed motion for class certification came on for hearing before this Court on
2 March 28, 2023. The Court, having considered all pleadings and papers submitted in regard to
3 this motion and having heard oral argument by counsel for the parties, and good cause appearing
4 therefor, hereby orders as follows:
5 1. The Court grants Plaintiffs’ Request for Judicial Notice, and takes Judicial Notice of the
6 Memorandum of Decision and Order on Plaintiffs’ Cross–Motion for Summary Judgment and
7 Defendant’s Cross–Motion for Summary Judgment in the matter of Da Costa v. Vanguard
8 Cleaning Systems, Inc., Case No. 15-04743 (Superior Court of Massachusetts, Middlesex
9 County, September 29, 2017), submitted as Exhibit 1 to Plaintiffs’ Request for Judicial Notice.
10 2. Based on the record before the Court, the Court finds the proposed VCS Class of all
11 California owner-operator franchisee cleaners who signed a franchise agreement with Vanguard
12 Cleaning Systems, Inc., or any of its master franchisors, and who personally performed cleaning
13 work during the period commencing four years prior to April 6, 2020 to be ascertainable and
14 numerous because Defendants’ records will be able to identify each of the Class Members,
15 which number well over 100. Additionally, each subclass (the Buddha Subclass, the RRF
16 Subclass, and the WCV Subclass) are sufficiently numerous, as over 40 Cleaners worked with
17 each Regional Franchise during the covered period, and sufficiently ascertainable.
18 3. The typicality requirement is also met because the claims of the named Plaintiffs, Alida
19 Mazariegos, Paula Gonzalez, and Jaime Amaya, appear on this record to be substantially similar
20 to those of the Class Members. Plaintiffs allege that they were subject to the same overarching
21 misclassification decision by Defendants, required to bear common deductions and unreimbursed
22 expenses, and received similar allegedly deficient wage statements. These claims appear to be
23 typical of those of the other Cleaners that they seek to represent.
24 4. The Court concludes further, based on the record before it, that the commonality and
25 predominance of common issues requirements are met. The proposed class appears on the record
26 before the Court to be sufficiently cohesive to warrant class-wide adjudication because Class
27 Members share a common nucleus of facts and potential legal remedies. Plaintiffs allege that
28 Defendant had a policy of misclassifying all Cleaners as independent contractors instead of
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ RENEWED MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION AND
APPOINTMENT OF CLASS COUNSEL 1
1 employees and, in addition, violating substantive underlying California wage and hour laws,
2 including requiring Cleaners to bear business expenses, improperly deducting from Cleaners’
3 wages, and failing to provide wage statements. Although Defendants dispute Plaintiffs’
4 characterization of the propriety of its classification system, the Court finds that common legal
5 and factual questions about Defendants’ classification of Cleaners are not individualized but are
6 instead sufficiently common across the proposed class.
7 5. The Court finds further that the adequacy requirement is also met because the named
8 Plaintiffs and their counsel appear to have no interests adverse to the proposed class, and they
9 appear to be committed to vigorously prosecuting the case on behalf of the class. In addition,
10 Plaintiffs’ Counsel, who are experienced employment and class action attorneys, have
11 demonstrated their commitment to litigating the case on behalf of the Class.
12 6. Moreover, the Court finds that the use of the class device here will provide redress for
13 many employees who are unwilling or unable to file individual suits and avoid the risk of
14 inconsistent judgments. For these reasons, a class action settlement is the preferred method of
15 resolution of the Class’s claims.
16 7. As such, the following Class (the “VCS Class”) shall be certified under California Code
17 of Civil Procedure § 382: All California owner-operator franchisee cleaners who signed a
18 franchise agreement with Vanguard Cleaning Systems, Inc., or any of its master franchisors, and
19 who personally performed cleaning work during the period commencing four years prior to April
20 6, 2020 through the date of trial. The Court finds that class certification is proper as to the
21 following causes of action in Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint: Numbers One (expense
22 reimbursement), Two (unlawful withholding and receipt of earned wages), Six (failure to provide
23 accurate wage statements), and Eight (unfair competition). Additionally, the Court finds that
24 subclasses for Buddha, RRF, and WCV shall also be certified. The Buddha Subclass consists of
25 all VCS Class Members who performed cleaning work through Buddha, and covers claims One,
26 Two, Six, and Eight; the RRF Subclass consists of all VCS Class Members who performed
27 cleaning work through RRF, and covers claims One, Two, Six, and Eight; the WCV Subclass
28
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ RENEWED MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION AND
APPOINTMENT OF CLASS COUNSEL 2
1 consists of all VCS Class Members who performed cleaning work through WCV, and covers
2 claims One, Two, and Eight.
3 8. The Court hereby appoints Plaintiffs Alida Mazariegos, Paula Gonzalez, and Jaime
4 Amaya as representatives of the VCS Class, and Rukin Hyland & Riggin LLP and Nichols
5 Kaster LLP as Class Counsel. Plaintiffs Mazariegos, Gonzales, and Amaya are appointed as
6 representatives of the WCV, RRF, and Buddha Subclasses, respectively.
7 9. The Court orders notice to the certified class be sent, including an opportunity to opt out.
8 The Court orders Plaintiffs’ Counsel to submit a proposed form of class notice to the Court for
9 approval within 14 days of this Order and orders Defendant, in the next 21 days, to prepare an
10 updated list of all class members and their most current contact information to be used in the
11 distribution of class notice.
12
13
IT IS SO ORDERED.
14
15
Date: ______________ ____________________________
16 Hon. Nancy L. Fineman
Superior Court Judge
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ RENEWED MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION AND
APPOINTMENT OF CLASS COUNSEL 3
Preview
1 JESSICA RIGGIN (SBN 281712) jriggin@rukinhyland.com 2 VALERIE BRENDER (SBN 298224) vbrender@rukinhyland.com 3 RUKIN HYLAND & RIGGIN LLP 4 1939 Harrison Street, Suite 290 Oakland, CA 94612 5 Telephone: (415) 421-1800 Facsimile: (415) 421-1700 6 MATTHEW HELLAND (SBN 250451) 7 helland@nka.com 8 DANIEL BROME (SBN 278915) dbrome@nka.com 9 NICHOLS KASTER, LLP 235 Montgomery St., Suite 810 10 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 277-7235 11 Facsimile: (415) 277-7238 12 13 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 14 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 15 COUNTY OF SAN MATEO 16 17 ALIDA MAZARIEGOS, PAULA Case No. 20-CIV-04267 18 GONZALEZ, and JAIME AMAYA [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING 19 Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves PLAINTIFFS’ RENEWED MOTION FOR and all others similarly situated, CLASS CERTIFICATION 20 v. Judge: Hon. Nancy L. Fineman 21 Dept.: 04 22 VANGUARD CLEANING SYSTEMS, INC.; RR FRANCHISING, INC., D/B/A 23 VANGUARD CLEANING SYSTEMS OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA AND D/B/A 24 VANGUARD CLEANING SYSTEMS OF 25 NORTHERN CALIFORNIA; BUDDHA CAPITAL CORPORATION, D/B/A 26 VANGUARD CLEANING SYSTEMS OF SACRAMENTO, D/B/A VANGUARD 27 CLEANING SYSTEMS OF THE CENTRAL VALLEY, AND D/B/A 28 [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ RENEWED MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION AND APPOINTMENT OF CLASS COUNSEL 1 VANGUARD CLEANING SYSTEMS OF 2 THE CENTRAL COAST; AND WINE COUNTRY VENTURES, INC. D/B/A 3 VANGUARD CLEANING SYSTEMS OF THE NORTH BAY, AND DOES 1 4 THROUGH 10, INCLUSIVE, 5 Defendants. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ RENEWED MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION AND APPOINTMENT OF CLASS COUNSEL 1 Plaintiffs’ renewed motion for class certification came on for hearing before this Court on 2 March 28, 2023. The Court, having considered all pleadings and papers submitted in regard to 3 this motion and having heard oral argument by counsel for the parties, and good cause appearing 4 therefor, hereby orders as follows: 5 1. The Court grants Plaintiffs’ Request for Judicial Notice, and takes Judicial Notice of the 6 Memorandum of Decision and Order on Plaintiffs’ Cross–Motion for Summary Judgment and 7 Defendant’s Cross–Motion for Summary Judgment in the matter of Da Costa v. Vanguard 8 Cleaning Systems, Inc., Case No. 15-04743 (Superior Court of Massachusetts, Middlesex 9 County, September 29, 2017), submitted as Exhibit 1 to Plaintiffs’ Request for Judicial Notice. 10 2. Based on the record before the Court, the Court finds the proposed VCS Class of all 11 California owner-operator franchisee cleaners who signed a franchise agreement with Vanguard 12 Cleaning Systems, Inc., or any of its master franchisors, and who personally performed cleaning 13 work during the period commencing four years prior to April 6, 2020 to be ascertainable and 14 numerous because Defendants’ records will be able to identify each of the Class Members, 15 which number well over 100. Additionally, each subclass (the Buddha Subclass, the RRF 16 Subclass, and the WCV Subclass) are sufficiently numerous, as over 40 Cleaners worked with 17 each Regional Franchise during the covered period, and sufficiently ascertainable. 18 3. The typicality requirement is also met because the claims of the named Plaintiffs, Alida 19 Mazariegos, Paula Gonzalez, and Jaime Amaya, appear on this record to be substantially similar 20 to those of the Class Members. Plaintiffs allege that they were subject to the same overarching 21 misclassification decision by Defendants, required to bear common deductions and unreimbursed 22 expenses, and received similar allegedly deficient wage statements. These claims appear to be 23 typical of those of the other Cleaners that they seek to represent. 24 4. The Court concludes further, based on the record before it, that the commonality and 25 predominance of common issues requirements are met. The proposed class appears on the record 26 before the Court to be sufficiently cohesive to warrant class-wide adjudication because Class 27 Members share a common nucleus of facts and potential legal remedies. Plaintiffs allege that 28 Defendant had a policy of misclassifying all Cleaners as independent contractors instead of [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ RENEWED MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION AND APPOINTMENT OF CLASS COUNSEL 1 1 employees and, in addition, violating substantive underlying California wage and hour laws, 2 including requiring Cleaners to bear business expenses, improperly deducting from Cleaners’ 3 wages, and failing to provide wage statements. Although Defendants dispute Plaintiffs’ 4 characterization of the propriety of its classification system, the Court finds that common legal 5 and factual questions about Defendants’ classification of Cleaners are not individualized but are 6 instead sufficiently common across the proposed class. 7 5. The Court finds further that the adequacy requirement is also met because the named 8 Plaintiffs and their counsel appear to have no interests adverse to the proposed class, and they 9 appear to be committed to vigorously prosecuting the case on behalf of the class. In addition, 10 Plaintiffs’ Counsel, who are experienced employment and class action attorneys, have 11 demonstrated their commitment to litigating the case on behalf of the Class. 12 6. Moreover, the Court finds that the use of the class device here will provide redress for 13 many employees who are unwilling or unable to file individual suits and avoid the risk of 14 inconsistent judgments. For these reasons, a class action settlement is the preferred method of 15 resolution of the Class’s claims. 16 7. As such, the following Class (the “VCS Class”) shall be certified under California Code 17 of Civil Procedure § 382: All California owner-operator franchisee cleaners who signed a 18 franchise agreement with Vanguard Cleaning Systems, Inc., or any of its master franchisors, and 19 who personally performed cleaning work during the period commencing four years prior to April 20 6, 2020 through the date of trial. The Court finds that class certification is proper as to the 21 following causes of action in Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint: Numbers One (expense 22 reimbursement), Two (unlawful withholding and receipt of earned wages), Six (failure to provide 23 accurate wage statements), and Eight (unfair competition). Additionally, the Court finds that 24 subclasses for Buddha, RRF, and WCV shall also be certified. The Buddha Subclass consists of 25 all VCS Class Members who performed cleaning work through Buddha, and covers claims One, 26 Two, Six, and Eight; the RRF Subclass consists of all VCS Class Members who performed 27 cleaning work through RRF, and covers claims One, Two, Six, and Eight; the WCV Subclass 28 [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ RENEWED MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION AND APPOINTMENT OF CLASS COUNSEL 2 1 consists of all VCS Class Members who performed cleaning work through WCV, and covers 2 claims One, Two, and Eight. 3 8. The Court hereby appoints Plaintiffs Alida Mazariegos, Paula Gonzalez, and Jaime 4 Amaya as representatives of the VCS Class, and Rukin Hyland & Riggin LLP and Nichols 5 Kaster LLP as Class Counsel. Plaintiffs Mazariegos, Gonzales, and Amaya are appointed as 6 representatives of the WCV, RRF, and Buddha Subclasses, respectively. 7 9. The Court orders notice to the certified class be sent, including an opportunity to opt out. 8 The Court orders Plaintiffs’ Counsel to submit a proposed form of class notice to the Court for 9 approval within 14 days of this Order and orders Defendant, in the next 21 days, to prepare an 10 updated list of all class members and their most current contact information to be used in the 11 distribution of class notice. 12 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 15 Date: ______________ ____________________________ 16 Hon. Nancy L. Fineman Superior Court Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ RENEWED MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION AND APPOINTMENT OF CLASS COUNSEL 3