Young v. Safelite Fulfillment Inc

1 . HONORABLE JAMES L. ROBART UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 9 AT SEATTLE il MARIO E. YOUNG, JR., . Case No. 2:19-cv-01027-JLR.

12 STIPULATED MOTION AND | Ak 13 Plaintiff, [PROPOSED] ORDER STAYING CASE PENDING WASHINGTON SUPREME 4 Vv. COURT’S RESOLUTION OF CERTIFIED QUESTION IN SAMPSON y. KNIGHT || SAFELITE FULFILLMENT, INC., et al., TRANSPORTATION, INC. 16 Defendants.

17 □ 26 .

27 |) STIPULATED MOTION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER ACKERMANN & TILAJEF, P.C.

STAYING CASE 2602 North Proctor St., #205 CASE NO, 2:19-cv-01027-JLR Tacoma, Washington 98406 TT £953) 625-7730 / F (253) 776-0021 1 RECITALS 2 WHEREAS, on or about June 3, 2019, Plaintiff MARIO E. YOUNG, JR. (“Plaintiff”) filed the operative putative Class Action Complaint for Unpaid and Wrongfully Withheld Wages (the || “Complaint”) in this action in the Superior Court of the State of Washington in and for the County of || King at Seattle [Dkt. #1-2]; 6 WHEREAS, on July 2, 2019, Defendant SAFELITE FULFILLMENT, INC. (“Defendant”) removed Plaintiffs above-described state court action to this Court [Dkt. #1] invoking the subject || matter jurisdiction of this Court under the Class Action Fairness Act ((CAFA”), which the parties || agree is properly invoked in this action; 10 PLAINTIFF’S PUTATIVE UNPAID NGN-PRODUCTIVE TIME CLAIMS 11 WHEREAS, in his Complaint, Plaintiff alleges, inter alia, that in Carranza vy. Dovex Fruit || Co,, 190 Wash,2d 612 (2018) (“Carranza”), the Washington Supreme Court “held that employers || who pay agricultural workers on a piece-rate basis must compensate the workers on a separate hourly || basis for time spent performing activities that are outside the scope of the piece rate picking work” || and that “Defendant’s PPP piece-rate compensation system is virtually indistinguishable from the || piece rate scheme[] in Carranza... .” [Dkt. #1-2, □□□ 16-17]; 17 WHEREAS, in his Complaint, Plaintiff further alleges that, in Sampson v. Knight || Transportation, Inc., No. 2:17-cv-00028-JCC, 2018 WL 2984825, at *8-9 (W.D. Wash. June 14, 19 2018) (Coughenour, J.), the court “recogniz[ed] that while ... non-productive time claims were || previously denied [class] certification” on the grounds that such claims were not cognizable under |} Washington law, the court’s prior holdings were “called into question by the Washington Supreme || Court’s recent ruling in Caranza [sic]” [Dkt. #1-2, ] 16]; 23 WHEREAS, based upon Plaintiffs interpretation of Carranza and Sampson, the Complaint || asserts causes of action for (1) Violations of RCW 49.46.020, 090 for Failure to Pay Minimum Wage || for All Hours Worked, (2) Violation of RCW 49.52.050(2) for Failure to Satisfy Wage Obligations || Assumed Through Contract, and (3) Double Damages for Willful and Intentional Withholding of || Wages Pursuant to RCW 49,52.050, 070 stemming therefrom [id., J] 39-52]; .

28 || STIPULATED MOTION AND [PROPOSED] = ACKERMANN & TILATEF, □□□□ ORDER STAYING CASE 2602 North Proctor St., #205 CASE NO. 2:19-cv-01027-JLR Tacoma, Washington 98406 T. (253) 625-7720 | F, (253) 276-0081 WHEREAS, in support of his Second and Third Causes of Action, Plaintiff alleges that ||““Defendant paid its mobile technicians and technicians on a piece-rate scheme under which it did not || compensate mobile technicians and technicians separately and hourly, or at all, for ... certain non- |} installation tasks as required under Washington law,” including, but not limited to, “loading company || vans with equipment, cleaning company vans, traveling in company vehicles between the shop and the install site, paperwork, pre and post-installation inspections, meetings and orientations, and || telephone calls,” and asserts that “Plaintiff seeks relief on a class-wide basis for unpaid wages for ...

8 || all work performed” [id., J] 2-3; see also id, at FJ 13, 16-17, 42, 47]; 9 WHEREAS, in Sampson, 2018 WL 2984825, at *8, currently pending but stayed in this |} District, the plaintiffs similarly contend that the defendant’s piece-rate compensation scheme violates |) Washington’s Minimum Wage Act (the “MWA”) because there, “drivers are not paid minimum wage ||for the time they spend conducting pre-trip inspections, completing paperwork, loading and || unloading the truck, and refueling”; 14 WHEREAS, in Sampson, 2018 WL 2984825, at *9, the Court recognized that “[c]lourts in || this district ... have previously held that Plaintiffs’ on-duty, not driving fnon-productive time] claims || are not cognizable under Washington law,” but it reasoned that “these prior holdings are called into || question by the Washington Supreme Court’s recent ruling in [Carranza],” on the grounds that the Washington Supreme Court’s “interpretation of the MWA would seem to apply to all employers,” || not just agricultural workers; 20 WHEREAS, the district court in Sampson “conclude[d] that the law underlying Plaintiffs’ on 21 duty, not driving [non-productive time] claim is not clearly determined, and that the Washington || Supreme Court is in a better position than this Court to answer this question,” see id., and therefore || certified the following question to the Washington Supreme Court: “Does the Washington Minimum || Wage Act require non-agricultural employers to pay their piece-rate employees per hour for time || spent performing activities outside of piece-rate work?”; 26 WHEREAS, briefing on the district court’s certified question in Sampson was completed in 27 the Washington Supreme Court on December 21, 2018, the Washington Supreme Court heard oral || STIPULATED MOTION AND [PROPOSED[ =——s—<“<t~‘“‘éS RMANN EE TILAIEP, □□ ORDER STAYING CASE 2602 North Proctor St., #205 CASE NO, 2:19-ey-01027-JLR Tacoma, Washington 98406 T, (253) 625-7720 | F, (253) 276-0081 1}/argument in Sampson on May 16, 2019, and the Court has not yet rendered its decision in that || proceeding; 3 WHEREAS, the parties agree that the Washington Supreme Court’s resolution of the || question certified in Sampson may directly impact the disposition of Plaintiff's claims asserted in this action, which assert an unpaid non-productive time wages claim similar to that asserted by the || plaintiffs in Sampson; 7 - WHEREAS, the parties’ agree that a stay of this case pending the Washington Supreme || Court’s resolution of the certified question in Sampson v. Knight Transportation, Inc. (Wash. □□□□□ Case No. 96264-2), which could bear directly upon Plaintiff's putative “non-productive” time unpaid || wage claims in this action, would be prudent and efficient for both the Court and the parties, and that || good cause exists to stay this case pending resolution of the Sampson case, but with a full reservation, |) and without waiver or limitation, of the parties’ respective rights, claims, remedies, defenses, and |] positions in this action including as to the issues recited above. A stay will also permit the parties to || engage in early mediation for this matter following the exchange of informal discovery, and the {| parties currently aim to attend private mediation in early 2020.

16 STIPULATION □ 17 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between || Plaintiff, on the one hand, and Defendant, on the other hand, by and through their respective || undersigned counsel, and subject to the Court’s approval, that: 20 1. The dates set forth in the Court’s Rule 16(B) and Rule 23(D)(2) Scheduling Order || Regarding Class Certification Motion [Dkt. #13], and all other deadlines currently set in this action ||be vacated, including without limitation Plaintiff's deadline to complete discovery on class || certification and to move for class certification; 24 2. This action be stayed, in its entirety and for all purposes, pending the Washington || Supreme Court’s decision on the certified question in Sampson v. Knight Transportation, Inc., Wash. || S.Ct. Case No. 96264-2; || STIPULATED MOTION AND [PROPOSED] —~——~———CS ACKERMAN & TILJEF, ORDER STAYING CASE 2602 North Proctor St., #205 CASE NO. 2:19-cy-01027-JLR Tacoma, Washington 98406 T. (253) 625-7720 | F. (253) 276-0081 1 3, Within fourteen (14) days of the Washington Supreme Court’s decision in Sampson, the parties shall file a joint status report with the Court that (1) informs the Court regarding that || Court’s decision, (2) sets forth the parties’ respective and/or collective positions as to whether the || stay should remain in effect, and (3) provides the Court with agreed-upon and/or proposed deadlines || for [i] completion of discovery on class certification and for Plaintiff to move for class certification || under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23; and [ii] submission of an updated Joint Status Report and Discovery Plan.

7 4, By entering into and submitting this Stipulated Motion, the parties fully reserve, and || do not waive or limit, their respective rights, claims, remedies, defenses, and positions in this action, || including as to the issues recited above.

11]} DATED: August 26, 2019 Respectfully submitted, /s/ India Lin Bodien /s/ Michaet J. Shoenfelt India Lin Bodien, WSBA #44898 Michael J. Shoenfelt (Pro Hac Vice) Law Offices of India Bodien, Esq. Andrew C. Smith (Pro Hac Vice) 2522 North Proctor Street, #387 Daniel J. Clark (Pro Hac Vice) Tacoma, WA 98406-5338 VORYS, SATER, SEYMOUR AND PEASE |} Phone: (253) 212-7913 LLP Email: [email protected] 52 E. Gay St. 16 Columbus, OH 43215 Craig J. Ackermann, WSBA #53330 Phone: (614) 464-5497 17|| Brian Denlinger, WSBA #53177 Fax: (614) 719-4760 ACKERMANN & TILAJEF, P.C. Email: [email protected] 1180 South Beverly Drive, Suite 610 [email protected] 19|| Los Angeles, California 90035 [email protected] Phone: (310) 277-0614 Fax: (310) 277-0635 Sheryl J. Willert, WSBA #08617 Email: [email protected] Jeffrey M. Wells, WSBA #45840 1 [email protected] WILLIAMS, KASTNER & GIBBS PLLC Union Street, Suite 4100 Attorneys for Plaintiff Seattle, WA 98101-2380 || MARIO E. YOUNG, JR. Phone: (206) 628-6600 ‘Email: swillert@williamskastner,com 24 [email protected] 25 Attorneys for Defendant 26 SAFELITE FULFILLMENT, INC. □ || STIPULATED MOTION AND [PROPOSED] ACKERMANN & TILAIEF, □□□ ORDER STAYING CASE 2602 North Proctor St., #205 CASE NO. 2:19-cy-01027-JLR. Tacoma, Washington 98406 T. (253) 625-7720 | F. (253) 276-0081 I REPOST ORDER 2 This matter came before the Court on the parties’ Stipulated Motion Staying Case Pending || Washington Supreme Court’s Resolution of Certified Question in Sampson v, Knight Transportation, || inc. (the “Stipulated Motion”). The Court, having reviewed the Stipulated Motion; and good cause jl appearing for the relief sought therein, hereby orders as follows: 6 l. The dates set forth in the Court’s Rule 16(B) and Rule 23(D)(2) Scheduling Order || Regarding Class Certification Motion [Dkt. #13], and all other deadlines currently set in this action 8||shall be and hereby are vacated, including without limitation Plaintiff's deadline to complete || discovery on class certification and to move for class certification; 10 2. This action shall be and hereby is stayed, in its entirety and for all purposes, pending . 11j}the Washington Supreme Court’s decision on the certified question in Sampson v. Knight || Transportation, Inc., Wash. S.Ct. Case No. 96264-2; 13 3. Within fourteen (14) days of the Washington Supreme Court’s decision in Sampson, || the parties shall file a joint status report with the Court that (1) informs the Court regarding that || Court’s decision, (2) sets forth the parties’ respective and/or collective positions as to whether the || stay should remain in effect, and (3) provides the Court with agreed-upon and/or proposed deadlines || for [i] completion of discovery on class certification and for Plaintiff to move for class certification || under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23; and [ii] submission of an updated Joint Status Report and Discovery Plan.

19 4, The parties’ entering into and submission of this Stipulated Motion is without waiver limitation of their respective rights, claims, remedies, defenses, and positions in this action, || including as to the issues recited therein.

22, IT IS SO ORDERED, 23 . eo .

DATED this_% day of Seg 2019.

25 \ OO 26 THE HONORABLE JAMES L., ROBART 27 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE “STIPULATED MOTION AND [PROPOSED] TT ACKERMANN © TILAIER □□ ORDER STAYING CASE 2602 North Proctor St., #205 CASE NO, 2:19-cy-01027-JLR. Tacoma, Washington 98406 T, (253) 625-7720 | F. (253) 276-0081 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 2 hereby certify that I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the || CM/ECF system that will send notification of such filing to the following: Michael J. Shoenfelt (Pro Hae Vice) Sheryl J, Willert, WSBA #08617 5 Andrew C. Smith (Pro Hac Vice) Jeffrey M. Wells, WSBA #45840 Daniel J. Clark (Pro Hac Vice) WILLIAMS, KASTNER & GIBBS PLLC 6 VORYS, SATER, SEYMOUR AND PEASE — 601 Union Street, Suite 4100 LLP Seattle, WA 98101-2380 7 52 E, Gay St. Phone: (206) 628-6600 Columbus, OH 43215 Email: [email protected] 8 Phone: (614) 464-5497 [email protected] Fax: (614) 719-4760 9 Email: [email protected] [email protected] 10 [email protected] 12 IT further certify that I mailed a true and correct copy of the foregoing to the following non- || CM/ECF participant: N/A.

15 Executed on August 27, 2019, at Los Angeles, California.

18 /s/ Jaclyn Blackwell Jaclyn Blackwell 19 Office Manager 25 .

28 ||" STIPULATED MOTION AND [PROPOSED] ACKERMANN & TILAJEF, P.C.

ORDER STAYING CASE 2602 North Proctor St, #205 CASE NO, 2:19-cv-01027-JLR Tacoma, Washington 98406 T, (253) 625-7720 | F, (253) 276-0081