In recent news, the court sides with Walmart in two different but connected wage statement violations lawsuits.

The Case: Anguiano-Tamayo v. Wal-Mart Assocs.

The Court: United States District Court, Northern District of California

The Case No.: 18-cv-04598-JSC

The Plaintiff: Anguiano-Tamayo v. Wal-Mart Assocs.

The plaintiff in the case, Anguiano-Tamayo, filed a putative class action in 2018 bringing claims under California Labor Code §§ 226 and 2698 against her employer, Walmart Assocs.

The Defendant: Anguiano-Tamayo v. Wal-Mart Assocs.

The defendant in the case, Walmart Assocs., moved to dismiss based on the plaintiff's failure to state a claim. The Court denied the motion to dismiss but stayed the case saying it was duplicative of an earlier-filed case pending at that time in the Northern District of California. The duplicative case concluded in 2021.

The Duplicitous Case: Magadia v. Wal-Mart Associates, Inc.

Roderick Magadia filed the duplicative putative class action in 2016 against his former employer Wal-Mart. (Magadia v. Wal-Mart Associates, Inc., No. 5:17-cv-00062-LHK, Dkt. No. 1-1.) Magadia alleged three violations of the California Labor Code:

• wage statement violations (adjusted overtime pay rates allegedly did not include hourly rates or hours worked),

• failure to list pay-period start and end dates on statements of final pay,

• and meal break violations.

In June 2018, Wal-Mart attempted to file a motion for reconsideration of the court's order granting partial summary judgment based on Canales (No. 5:17-cv-00062-LHK, Dkt. No. 129 at 3), a recent California Court of Appeals decision. The court denied "any motion for reconsideration" based on Canales. At the same time, Magadia attempted to amend the original complaint to add a new theory of liability based on Walmart's attempt to raise a new defense. The district court denied the request based on the advanced state of litigation combined with their denial of the defendant's request to raise a new defense. In response, the plaintiff's counsel filed the instant action on behalf of Ana Anguiano-Tamayo, a different employee, and filed an administrative motion to consider whether the two cases were related, arguing that they shared overlapping factual allegations regarding Wal-Mart's wage statements. Wal-Mart opposed claiming that the cases are based on unique theories of liability (Anguiano-Tamayo calls into question how certain wage statements reflect pay periods, and Magadia calls into question how wage statements reflect hourly rates and hours worked. The court denied the request to relate the two cases and stayed the more recently filed case, Anguiano-Tamayo v. Wal-Mart Assocs.

A Common Nucleus of Fact: Anguiano-Tamayo v. Wal-Mart Assocs.

After the conclusion of Magadia v. Wal-Mart Associates, Inc, the Anguiano-Tamayo v. Wal-Mart Assocs. case proceeded. While the theories behind the two cases were determined to be unique, in considering Anguiano-Tamayo v. Wal-Mart Assocs., the court decided that they did both arise out of the same transactional nucleus of fact. The court found that Magadia precludes the plaintiff's claim in Anguiano-Tamayo v. Wal-Mart Assocs. The court granted the Defendant's motion for judgment.

If you have questions about wage statement violations or need to file an employment law claim, please contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.