Jauregui v. LPF RE Manager CA2/8

Filed 5/11/22 Jauregui v. LPF RE Manager CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION EIGHT

MARTIN JAUREGUI, B311570 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County v. Super. Ct. No. 19STCV36107)

LPF RE MANAGER, LLC, Defendant and Respondent;

SANDRA GASCA, Movant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Yvette M. Palazuelos, Judge. Affirmed. Mallison & Martinez, Stan S. Mallison, Hector R. Martinez and Heather M. Hamilton for Movant and Appellant. David Yeremian & Associates, David Yeremian and Alvin B. Lindsay for Plaintiff and Respondent Martin Jauregui. Fenton & Keller and Elizabeth R. Leitzinger for Defendant and Respondent LPF RE Manager. _______________________

Martin Jauregui (Jauregui) filed a wage and hour class action and Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) lawsuit against LPF RE Manager (LPF) based on an off-the-clock security check allegedly imposed by LPF on all workers at LPF’s premises. Sandra Gasca (Gasca), who later filed a wage and hour class action and PAGA lawsuit against LPF and labor contractor Valley Harvest (Valley Harvest) based on the same security check required at the LPF worksite, appeals the trial court’s denial of her motion to intervene in Jauregui’s action. We affirm the order.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND I. Jauregui Action Jauregui is a former employee of LPF at its cannabis manufacturing and distribution facilities in Greenfield, California. In October 2019, Jauregui filed a class action lawsuit in the Los Angeles Superior Court against LPF RE Manager and Doe defendants, alleging failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay wages and overtime, meal-period and rest-break liability, other violations of the Labor Code, and unfair business practices in violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200. The basis for the causes of action was LPF’s alleged practice of requiring all employees to undergo extensive security screening procedures upon arrival and departure for which they were not compensated. As a result of the lengthy screening procedures, breaks and meal periods were not extended, overtime and double time were not correctly calculated, wages owed were not properly paid, and time-keeping records were not properly maintained. In February 2020, Jauregui added a PAGA claim in his first amended complaint.