Page 1
Putative Class Action Reinstated Over Dissent That Says Two Stabs at Pleading Are Enough
Majority of Ninth Circuit Panel Says Gist of Class Definition Was Discernible, Repleading Must Be Allowed
By a MetNews Staff Writer
The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decided yesterday
that a man whose definition of a proposed class was so broad as to prompt a
District Court judge to dismiss the class allegations with prejudice must be
given another chance to plead, with a dissenter insisting that the plaintiff’s
two opportunities were sufficient.
All members of the three-judge panel were in agreement that
District Court Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald of the Central District of
California erred in finding that plaintiff Rick Parsittie
had failed to state individual claims against Schneider Logistics
Transportation, Inc. and related entities based on alleged wage-and-hour
violations. He contended that by virtue of having to wait in line at a security
checkpoint for five to 15 minutes each day, he was uncompensated for over-time
and deterred from going off-site for lunch.
Other rulings were affirmed by the panel.
Parsittie
filed his putative class action in 2018 in Santa Clara Superior Court but
Schneider Logistics, a trucking company headquartered in Wisconsin, removed it
to federal court based on diversity. The plaintiff filed a first amended
complaint against his former employer, then a second.
Fitzgerald dismissed the second amended complaint with leave
to amend, but did not permit further pleading after dismissing the third
amended complaint, finding that none of the deficiencies he previously
pinpointed had been remedied.
Fitzgerald’s Ruling
Parsittie
defined the class as “Defendants and/or any staffing agencies in hourly or
non-exempt positions in California during the Relevant Time Period.” The judge
ruled:
“Plaintiff’s class definition is still overly-broad and too
vague, as it includes any person who has worked for any staffing agency in
California.”
He pointed out that the class definition “is not limited to
staffing agencies used by Defendants or those that employed Plaintiff,” adding:
“Plaintiff does not even allege he ever worked for a staffing
agency.”
Ninth Circuit’s Reversal
Voting to reinstate the class allegations were Circuit Judge
Marsha S. Berzon and Kathleen Cardone, a District Court judge for the Western
District of Texas, sitting by designation. They said in a memorandum opinion:
“[A]lthough the language could have
been more precise, the complaint, fairly read, alleges that Parsittie’s
proposed class definition includes employees who are employed by staffing
agencies acting as joint employers with the defendant. Furthermore, Parsittie’s single failure to cure defects in the class
definition does not constitute ‘repeated failure to cure deficiencies.’ ”
The judges continued:
“Given the plausible reading of the complaint, the failure to
find futility, and the procedural history, Parsittie
should at least have been granted leave to amend to allege the class definition
more precisely.”
Dissenting from that portion of the majority’s opinion,
Senior Circuit Judge Jay S. Bybee wrote:
“In my view, the district court’s decision to deny leave to
amend after Parsittie failed to cure the defects in
his first opportunity to amend is exactly the type of decision that falls
within the trial court’s discretion ‘to achieve the orderly and expeditious
disposition of cases.’…Where, as here, the plaintiff had prior opportunities to
remedy pleading defects, we have held that the district court’s discretion to
grant or deny leave to amend is ‘particularly broad.’ ”
He added:
“Not only did the district court previously grant Parsittie leave to amend, it provided the blueprint for
such amendment and warned Parsittie that further
amendment would not be allowed. Parsittie was not
blindsided by the dismissal, nor did he demonstrate to the district court that
further amendment would cure the deficiency.”
The case is Parsittie v.
Schneider Logistics, Inc., 20-55470.
Copyright
2021, Metropolitan News Company