Case Name: Ross McCammon v. Cisco Systems, Inc., et al.
Case No.: 17-CV-306110

This is a putative wage and hour class action by contract workers for defendant Cisco Systems, Inc. Before the Court is defendant’s motion to stay the action pending a decision by the Supreme Court of California in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court (Lee), No. S222732 (“Dynamex”). Plaintiff has filed a statement of non-opposition to Cisco’s motion.

Cisco’s request for judicial notice of the docket in Dynamex is GRANTED. (Evid. Code, § 454, subd. (d).)
I. Allegations of the Operative Complaint

Cisco, headquartered in San Jose, is the largest networking company in the world. (Complaint, ¶ 6.) It has tens of thousands of employees on its direct payroll, and also hires hundreds or thousands of individuals through third-party agencies at any given time. (Id. at ¶ 7.) These individuals work in a wide variety of positions from sales to development, and are paid by the agencies on an hourly basis. (Ibid.)

Plaintiff alleges that Cisco exercises such control over the work and working conditions of these individuals that it is legally their joint employer. (Complaint, ¶ 8.) Cisco directs the hours and location of work, exercises authority over the hiring and firing of non-payroll workers, exercises authority over their wages and rates of pay, and controls how their work is performed. (Ibid.) Non-payroll employees work side-by-side with direct Cisco employees, at the same facilities, and performing the same or similar job duties, with no meaningful distinctions between the two classes of workers. (Ibid.)

Plaintiff worked for Cisco from July 1, 2013 to May 30, 2016 as a non-payroll worker hired through a third-party employment agency. (Complaint, ¶ 9.) He worked primarily at the main Cisco campus in San Jose. (Ibid.) He was paid based on the hours recorded on his time card, but was told by his supervisor(s) to record a maximum of eight hours per day and forty hours per week although he regularly worked more than this. (Id. at ¶ 10.) He is informed and believes that this is a common practice with respect to Cisco’s non-payroll workers throughout California. (Id. at ¶ 11.) Plaintiff also was not reimbursed for a required smart phone, home computer, and internet service plans, and alleges this was also a standard practice for non-payroll workers. (Id. at ¶¶ 12-13.) Further, Cisco denied plaintiff and other non-payroll individuals promised benefits that were provided to direct employees. (Id. at ¶¶ 14-16.)

Based on these allegations, plaintiff asserts claims for (1) breach of implied contract, (2) failure to pay minimum wage, (3) failure to pay overtime, (4) failure to reimburse business expenses, (5) failure to provide timely and accurate wage statements, (6) failure to pay compensation due upon termination/waiting time penalties, and (7) unfair competition.

II. Analysis

“It is well established, in California and elsewhere, that a court has both the inherent authority and responsibility to fairly and efficiently administer all of the judicial proceedings that are pending before it, and that one important element of a court’s inherent judicial authority in this regard is ‘the power … to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants. How this can best be done calls for the exercise of judgment, which must weigh competing interests and maintain an even balance.’ ” (People v. Engram (2010) 50 Cal.4th 1131, 1146, quoting Landis v. North American Co. (1936) 299 U.S. 248, 254-255.) Following this principle, “[t]rial courts generally have the inherent power to stay proceedings in the interests of justice and to promote judicial efficiency.” (Freiberg v. City of Mission Viejo (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1484, 1489.)

The key issue in this action is whether plaintiff and other putative class members were misclassified as independent contractors for purposes of their various claims. In Dynamex, the Supreme Court will address the appropriate standard to be applied to analogous claims. (See Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court (Lee) (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 718 [applying Industrial Welfare Commission definition of an employment relationship to claims falling within the scope of a wage order, and common law definition to other claims], review granted and opinion superseded sub nom. Dynamex Operations West v. S.C. (Lee) (Cal. 2015) 182 Cal.Rptr.3d 644.) The present action was only recently filed, and the docket in Dynamex reflects that initial and supplemental briefing has been completed in that case. Cisco expects that oral argument in Dynamex will be set for this year, and plaintiff does not dispute this estimation or oppose Cisco’s request for a stay.

Under the circumstances, the Court finds that a stay will promote the efficient resolution of this action.

III. Conclusion and Order

In light of the above, the motion to stay is GRANTED. The case management conference currently scheduled for August 4, 2017 is CONTINUED TO DECEMBER 8, 2017 at 10:00 a.m. in Department 1.

The Court will prepare the order.