arrow left
arrow right
  • LOWE'S WAGE AND HOUR CASES Print JCCP Case  document preview
  • LOWE'S WAGE AND HOUR CASES Print JCCP Case  document preview
  • LOWE'S WAGE AND HOUR CASES Print JCCP Case  document preview
  • LOWE'S WAGE AND HOUR CASES Print JCCP Case  document preview
						
                                

Preview

Superior Court of California County of San Bernardino 247 W. Third Street. Dept. 8-26 San Bernardino, CA 92415-0210 F LE l S&ififisgsgngg'am SAN BERNARDINO R .- 0%??939 APR 2'3 2021 @mflm‘hthA W LA CWO. Deputy x SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, SAN BERNARDINO DISTRICT Coordination Proceeding Judicial Council Coordination Proceeding Special Title (Rule 3.550) Case No.: JCCP 5110 LOWE’S WAGE AND HOUR CASES RULING ON SUBMITTED MATTER: MOTION TO STAY: GRANTED Included actions: SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA Leenay v. Lowe’s Home Centers, LLC COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES NO. 1QSTCV33154 Morales v. Lowe’s Home SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA Centers, LLC, et al. COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO NO. CIVDS1827964 Kalivas v. Lowe’s Home Centers, LLC SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA MNNNNNNNNAAAAA—x—LAAA COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO WNGM#QNAO@QNO}G#“NAO NO. 37-201 9-00001 954-CU—OE—CTL Ceniceros, et al, v. Lowe’s Home SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA Centers, LLC COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO NO. 37-2020—0001 0047-CU-OE-CTL Alvarado v. Lowe’s Home Centers, LLC SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN MATEO NO. 18CIV05927 Ayala v. Lowe’s Home Centers, LLC SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF VENTURA NO. 56-2018-00521531-CU-OE-VTA Andrade v. Lowe’s Home Centers, LLC SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO NO. 37-2020-00022729-CU-OE-CTL Jenkins v. Lowe’s Home Centers, LLC SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF MONTEREY NO. ZOCV002277 V V A|| eight cases in these coordinated proceedings involve representative plaintiffs seeking civil penalties under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, Labor Code section 2698 et seq. (PAGA), brought against defendant Lowes Home Centers, LLC (“Lowes”) for alleged violations of various California Labor Code @mfla’mthA provisions. The “aggrieved employees" comprise all, or nearly all, individuals who worked for Lowes in California in non-exempt positions during the various time—periods covered by the eight cases. In addition to the coordinated cases, there are currently fifty-four arbitrations1 pending in California between Lowes and current and former non-exempt California employees who allege the same or similar Labor Code violations alleged in the coordinated cases? All fifty-four arbitration claimants fall within the collective group of “aggrieved employees” in the coordinated PAGA cases, though none is a named representative. Additionally, multi-district litigation (MDL) between Lowes and current and former Lowes employees is pending in the Western District of North Carolina, involving @NmmthéomeOm#wN—‘O NNNNthNNNAAAAAAAAAA lawsuits brought under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Eighty-five of the claimants are current or former California employees, who also fall within the collective group of “aggrieved employees" in the coordinated PAGA cases. Again, none is a named representative in the coordinated cases. 1 When Lowes filed this motion, there were fifty-two pending arbitrations. At the hearing, counsel for Lowes advised the Court that two more controversies had been ordered to arbitration. 2 Counsel for plaintiff in one of the coordinated cases, Leenay v. Lowe’s Home Centers, LLC, Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case Np. 19TSCC33154, maintains that the claims in Leenay, which are based on the calculation of the regular rate of pay for commission-based employees, are distinct from the claims asserted in the other coordinated cases and, presumably, in the fifty-four arbitrations. -2-