Case Name: Carlo Rizzo v. Randstad North America, L.P.

Case No.: 1-13-CV-255921

Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Notice of Additional Claims by Defendant Randstad North America, L.P.

Request for Judicial Notice

Defendant’s request for judicial notice is GRANTED. (See Evid. Code § 452, subd. (c), (d).)

Motion to Strike

Defendant moves to strike Plaintiff’s Notice of Additional Claims as they fail to meet the standards set forth in Murphy v. Kenneth Cole Productions, Inc. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 1094. “Whether an employee should be permitted to raise additional claims in the de novo proceeding is best left to the sound discretion of trial courts. Trial courts are equipped to weigh the various considerations, e.g. whether the claims are sufficiently related, whether the interests of judicial economy will be served, and whether the employer will be prejudiced.” (Murphy v. Kenneth Cole Productions, Inc., supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 1118.)

With respect to the trial de novo, Plaintiff seeks to add claims based on wages for meal periods and interest on past due wages. (See Defendant’s Request for Judicial Notice at Exhibit H.) Even though these claims were not before the Labor Commissioner, the Court has the authority to consider such claims in the trial de novo. (See Murphy v. Kenneth Cole Productions, Inc., supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 1117 [trial court properly exercised its discretion to consider wage claims that, while not previously considered by the Labor Commissioner, legally and factually flowed from the same underlying wage dispute]; see also Post v. Palo/Haklar & Associates (2000) 23 Cal.4th 942, 949-950 [California Supreme Court held that the Labor Code § 98.2 de novo hearing constitutes a new trial and the statute does not restrict a trial court’s authority to address a disputed question concerning any issue of law or fact].) The Court also finds that Plaintiff’s additional claims arise from the same underlying wage dispute which was the subject of the Berman Hearing.

With respect to judicial economy, Defendant argues that allowing Plaintiff’s additional claims will unnecessarily lengthen the trial de novo. (See Memo of P’s & A’s at p. 10.) In opposition, Plaintiff disputes this argument and asserts that the inclusion of such claims will add no more than an hour to the length of the trial. (See OPP at p. 7.) Beyond that, judicial economy would not be served by forcing Plaintiff to file an original civil action to raise the additional claims as it would be inconsistent with the legislative purpose under Labor Code section 98 of providing an expeditious resolution of wage claims. (See Sonic-Calabasas A, Inc. v. Moreno (2013) 57 Cal.4th 1109, 1128 [the Berman hearing procedure is designed to provide a speedy, informal, and affordable method of resolving wage claims]; Lolley v. Campbell (2002) 28 Cal.4th 367, 372 [the purpose of the Berman hearing is to avoid recourse to costly and time-consuming judicial proceedings in all but the most complex of wage claims]; see also Murphy v. Kenneth Cole Productions, Inc., supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 1119 [allowing trial courts to exercise discretion in deciding whether to permit employees to raise additional related wage claims is consistent with the Legislature’s intent to discourage frivolous and unmeritorious appeals from the commissioner’s awards].)

Finally, Defendant argues that it is prejudiced by Plaintiff’s additional claims as they were filed only 45 days before trial. (See Huff v. Wilkins (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 732, 746 [even if a good amendment is proposed in proper form, unwarranted delay in presenting it may—of itself—be a valid reason for denial].) However, as the opposition points out, to the extent that Defendant feels it is not prepared to defend against such claims, it failed to demand discovery with respect to the new claims. Moreover, Murphy provides that:

“If the employer appeals, and the employee obtains representation, it is likely that the employee’s attorneys will uncover additional, related facts and claims not thoroughly examined at the administrative level when the claimant was unrepresented. Just as an employer is not bound by the defenses it raised in the Berman process, but rather is entitled to abandon, change, or add defenses not brought before the Labor Commissioner, so may an employee raise additional wage-related claims in the de novo trial.”

(Murphy v. Kenneth Cole Productions, Inc., supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 1119 [internal citation omitted].)

Similarly, in his declaration under penalty of perjury, Plaintiff states that he was unrepresented by an attorney during the Berman Hearing and unaware of his ability to bring claims based on meal period premium pay or interest on his past due wages. (See Plaintiff’s Declaration at ¶ 10.) Given this evidence, Plaintiff should be afforded the opportunity to raise these additional claims in the trial de novo. Whether or not Plaintiff ultimately prevails on such claims is a separate issue to be decided by the trier of fact.

Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to strike Plaintiff’s Notice of Additional Claims is DENIED.