Christopher Mendoza, an individual, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant,
Nordstrom, Inc., a Washington Corporation authorized to do business in the State of California, Defendant-Appellee. and Meagan Gordon, Plaintiff-Intervenor, Christopher Mendoza, an individual, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, and Meagan Gordon, Plaintiff-Intervenor-Appellant,
Nordstrom, Inc., a Washington Corporation authorized to do business in the State of California, Defendant-Appellee.
December 12, 2014
Resubmitted June 30, 2017 Pasadena, California
from the United States District Court for the Central
District of California D.C. No. 8:10-cv-00109-CJC-MLG Cormac
J. Carney, District Judge, Presiding
André E. Jardini (argued) and K.L. Myles, Knapp
Petersen & Clarke, Glendale, California, for
Craig Clark (argued) and James M. Treglio, Clark Law Firm,
San Diego, California; David R. Markham, The Markham Law
Firm, San Diego, California; for
A. Dunne (argued), Dawn Fonseca, and Joshua D. Levine,
Littler Mendelson P.C, San Diego, California, for
Before: Susan P. Graber, Ronald M. Gould, and Consuelo M.
Callahan, Circuit Judges.
panel affirmed the district court's dismissal of
plaintiffs' California Labor Code Private Attorneys
General Act of 2004 ("PAGA") claims against
Nordstrom, Inc. alleging violations of California's
"day of rest" law.
Lab. Code § 551 grants employees a right to one
"day's rest" in seven. Cal. Lab. Code §
552 provides that no employer "shall cause his employees
to work more than six days in seven."
earlier order, the panel certified three questions of state
law to the California Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court
accepted certification and answered the questions,
Mendoza v. Nordstrom, Inc., 393 P.3d 375 (Cal.
panel held that the stipulated facts demonstrated that
neither plaintiff worked more than six consecutive days in
any one Nordstrom work week, and each of their individual
claims under California Labor Code sections 551 and 552
failed. The panel rejected plaintiffs' claim that the
case must be remanded to permit a new PAGA representative who
did suffer violations of sections 551 and 552 to "step
forward" and continue litigating the dispute.