Case: Arias v. Angelo Dairy

CV028612 | California state trial court

Filed Date: Feb. 15, 2006

Closed Date: Dec. 11, 2011

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

This case was brought on February 15, 2006, by an employee against employer Angelo Dairy in the Superior Court of San Joaquin County. The complaint alleged labor law violations under California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL) and the Labor Code Private Attorney General Act (PAGA). The employee, represented by California Rural Legal Assistance and Legal Aid at Work, claimed that he was not compensated for overtime wages, that he received no meal periods or rest breaks, and that the housing provid…

This case was brought on February 15, 2006, by an employee against employer Angelo Dairy in the Superior Court of San Joaquin County. The complaint alleged labor law violations under California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL) and the Labor Code Private Attorney General Act (PAGA). The employee, represented by California Rural Legal Assistance and Legal Aid at Work, claimed that he was not compensated for overtime wages, that he received no meal periods or rest breaks, and that the housing provided by the employer was not habitable. The plaintiff sought damages and injunctive relief. The case was assigned to Judge Holly P. Carter.

On July 21, 2006, the employer moved to strike representative causes of action for failure to comply with court rules for bringing class actions. The trial court granted the employer’s motion, after which the employee petitioned for a writ of mandate. Writing for the Court of Appeals for the Third District of California on July 24, 2007, Judge Cole Bease found that the employee’s UCL claim must be brought as a class action because the statute requires compliance with California’s Code of Civil Procedure section 382. The court further held that the PAGA claim could be brought as a representative claim without being brought as a class action since that was the express intent of the legislature. The statute was designed to allow an individual employee to act as a “private attorney general” to collect penalties from an employer who violated labor laws. Thus, an individual could bring an enforcement action on behalf of others under PAGA because they are not seeking restitution as a class action. 2007 WL 2111017.

The employee petitioned for review, which the Supreme Court of California granted. Writing for the Court on June 29, 2009, Justice Joyce L. Kennard affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision. 209 P.3d 923.

On February 11, 2010, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint to move forward with an individual UCL claim and a representative PAGA claim. The parties engaged in settlement conferences while simultaneously moving forward with discovery. On July 11, 2011, the employer agreed to pay the employee $75,000. The trial court approved the settlement on December 7, 2011. This case is closed.

Summary Authors

Robin Peterson (5/23/2023)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

S155965

California Supreme Court Docket S155965

California state supreme court

July 31, 2009

July 31, 2009

Docket

CV028612

Superior Court of California Trial Court Docket CV028612

June 15, 2012

June 15, 2012

Docket

C054185

California State Appellate Court Docket C054185

California state appellate court

April 8, 2016

April 8, 2016

Docket

CV028612

Complaint

Feb. 15, 2006

Feb. 15, 2006

Complaint

CV028612

Defendants' Notice of Motion and Motion to Strike Causes of Action

June 16, 2006

June 16, 2006

Pleading / Motion / Brief

CV028612

Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Defendants' Motion to Strike Causes of Action

June 16, 2006

June 16, 2006

Pleading / Motion / Brief

C054185

Opinion

California state appellate court

July 24, 2007

July 24, 2007

Order/Opinion

153 Cal.App.4th 153

S155965

Opinion

Arias v. Superior Court of San Joaquin County

California state supreme court

June 29, 2009

June 29, 2009

Order/Opinion

209 P.3d 209

CV028612

Second Amended Complaint

Feb. 11, 2010

Feb. 11, 2010

Complaint

CV028612

Settlement

July 11, 2011

July 11, 2011

Settlement Agreement

Docket

Last updated Aug. 30, 2023, 1:38 p.m.

Docket sheet not available via the Clearinghouse.

Case Details

State / Territory: California

Case Type(s):

Labor Rights

Key Dates

Filing Date: Feb. 15, 2006

Closing Date: Dec. 11, 2011

Case Ongoing: No

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

Private employee

Plaintiff Type(s):

Private Plaintiff

Attorney Organizations:

California Rural Legal Assistance

Public Interest Lawyer: Yes

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: No

Class Action Outcome: Not sought

Defendants

Angelo Dairy, Private Entity/Person

Case Details

Causes of Action:

State law

Available Documents:

Complaint (any)

Monetary Relief

Any published opinion

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Plaintiff

Nature of Relief:

Damages

Source of Relief:

Settlement

Form of Settlement:

Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree

Amount Defendant Pays: $75,000