Filed 3/23/22 Estrada v. Royalty Carpet Mills CA4/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE
| JORGE LUIS ESTRADA et al.,
Plaintiffs and Appellants,
v.
ROYALTY CARPET MILLS, INC.,
Defendant and Respondent.
|
G059350
(Super. Ct. No. 30-2013-00692890)
O P I N I O N |
Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Randall J. Sherman, Judge. Reversed and remanded.
Ginez, Steinmetz & Assoc., Rudy Ginez, Jr.; CE Smith Law Firm and Clifton E. Smith for Plaintiffs and Appellants.
Baker & Hostetler, Daniel F. Lula, Vartan S. Madoyan and Joseph S. Persoff for Defendant and Respondent.
* * *
This is a wage and hour class action and representative action under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA; Lab. Code § 2698, et seq.). A more complete summary of the facts is contained in the consolidated companion opinion to this appeal (G058397, G058969; the companion opinion). Generally, plaintiffs alleged their employer, Royalty Carpet Mills, Inc. (Royalty), which is now known as Royalty Carpet Mills, LLC, failed to provide compliant meal and rest breaks. They asserted claims against Royalty for meal and rest break violations as well as several derivative claims. Following trial, the court awarded plaintiffs a $630,348.31 judgment in January 2020 (the judgment).[1] Plaintiffs then filed a timely memorandum of costs under Code of Civil Procedure sections 1032 and 1033.5, requesting $48,896.52 in reimbursable costs. Royalty filed a motion to tax various items. Plaintiffs largely conceded and agreed to $18,586.95 in reductions. The hearing on Royalty’s motion to tax costs was initially set for March 20, 2020, but it was continued to June 19, 2020, due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
In April 2020, plaintiffs’ counsel discovered two items totaling $4,318.78 had been accidentally omitted from the memorandum of costs: (1) $3,736.20 paid to Simpluris, Inc., to provide class notice; and (2) $582.58 paid to a Royalty consultant for costs incurred responding to a business records subpoena seeking documents relating to Royalty’s meal and rest period policies. Royalty did not respond to plaintiffs’ request to stipulate that these costs be added to the memorandum of costs. So, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file an amended memorandum of costs to add these two items. The motion for leave was heard the same day as Royalty’s motion to tax costs. Following the hearing on both motions, the court awarded plaintiffs $30,248.07 in costs but denied the motion for leave to add the two omitted items. Plaintiffs appeal this order, arguing the trial court abused its discretion by denying the motion for leave.
In the companion opinion, we partially reversed the judgment. We also reversed an order by the court decertifying a portion of plaintiffs’ class claims based on meal break violations and dismissing as unmanageable a related representative claim under PAGA. We instructed the trial court to retry these class claims and PAGA claim on remand. Due to these rulings, the court’s order awarding costs is reversed. On remand, plaintiffs may file a new memorandum of costs following the new trial on these claims. At that point, the court may redetermine the correct amount of costs to which plaintiffs are entitled for the entire action under Code of Civil Procedure sections 1032 and 1033.5. The parties shall bear their own costs on this appeal.
MOORE, ACTING P. J.
WE CONCUR:
GOETHALS, J.
ZELON, J.*
*Retired Justice of the Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.
[1] The exact amount of the judgment is unclear. One postjudgment order states the total judgment is $630,348.31. In their opening brief, plaintiffs assert the total judgment is $630,252. And, in adding together the various components of the judgment, we calculate $623,484.53. Regardless, these discrepancies are immaterial to this appeal.
