Leo Q.Li

Reported Trial Court And Appellate Case Decisions

• Ramirez v. S. California Pizza Co., LLC, No. G062245, 2024 WL 4879325 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 22, 2024), as modified on denial of reh'g (Dec. 17, 2024), review denied (Feb. 11, 2025) (class certification sought on behalf of approximately 25,000 pizza delivery drivers; affirming the denial of class certification for claims of failure to reimburse business expenses and failure to pay wages at the correct regular rate of pay; rehearing requested by plaintiffs-appellants denied by the Court of Appeal; petition for review by plaintiffs-appellants denied by the California Supreme Court)
• Velazquez v. CEC Ent., LLC, No. 2:24-CV-03519-AB-AGR, 2024 WL 4560169, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 23, 2024) (granting motion to compel arbitration, effectively dismissing class action claims, and rejecting the plaintiff’s challenge that the agreement should be invalidated because it was entered into when she was a minor)
• Koch v. Tristar Ins. Group, Inc., No. C23-00920, 2023 WL 6690943, at *1 (Cal.Super. Sep. 21, 2023) (granting motion to compel arbitration, effectively dismissing class action claims and rejecting the plaintiff’s numerous challenges to the enforceability of the arbitration agreement)
• Hanna v. Ulta Salon, No. 34201900252198CUOEGD, 2023 WL 6664866, at *1 (Cal.Super. Aug. 11, 2023) (successfully defeated the proposed intervenors’ motion to intervene and objections to a proposed PAGA settlement by demonstrating that the existing plaintiff adequately represented their interests and that their penalty analysis was legally flawed)
• C. D. v. University of Southern California, No. 21STCV27760, 2022 WL 1439285, at *1 (Cal.Super. May 02, 2022) (granting motion to compel arbitration and rejecting the plaintiff’s numerous challenges to the enforceability of the arbitration agreement)
• Kabasele v. Ulta Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance, Inc., 2022 WL 229856 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 26, 2022) (granting motion to dismiss Second Amended Complaint alleging class action and PAGA claims, on the grounds that the plaintiffs merely listed boilerplate allegations unsupported by specific facts and could not state a “plausible claim” for relief)
• Christensen v. Carter's Retail, Inc., 2021 WL 4932244 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 21, 2021) (denying class certification as to all claims brought on behalf of over 8,000 employees, alleging failure to pay for time spent in bag checks/exit inspections and failure to allow off-site rest periods; the court noted that the employer’s written policies provided managerial discretion and found that “a policy of discretion” cannot be a “common policy” as required for class certification)
• In re Southern California Pizza Wage and Hour Cases, 2021 WL 4571227 (Cal. Super. Ct. September 3, 2021) (granting the employer’s motion for decertification of a class of 40,000 employees of one of the largest Pizza Hut franchisees; the court held that class certification could not be maintained based on the theory that the employer had a policy that did not explicitly tell employees they were allowed to leave the premises for rest periods; court held that an employer’s “silent” policy cannot support class certification, absent classwide evidence of harm)
• In re Southern California Pizza Wage and Hour Cases, 2021 WL 2549103 (Cal. Super. Ct. June 14, 2021) (denying class certification in a potential class of over 25,000 pizza delivery drivers, claiming that they were not fully reimbursed for the costs of operating their own personal vehicles; court held that an employer does not have to pay the standard mileage rate set by the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”), but may merely pay the actual expenses incurred by an employee, even if those actual expenses are lower than the IRS rate; court held that actual expenses involve thousands of individualized inquiries, which require denial of class certification)
• Southern California Pizza Wage and Hour Cases, No. JCCP 4725, 2019 WL 13438048 (Cal.Super. Dec. 06, 2019) (granting motion to compel arbitration, effectively dismissing FLSA collective action claims and rejecting the plaintiff’s argument that the defendant waived its right to enforce the arbitration agreement by participating in a prior class action settlement that included the plaintiff as a settlement class member)
• Elguea v. Southern California Pizza Co. LLC, et al., 2018 WL 2949589 (Cal. Ct. App. 2018) (affirming judgment for the employer; and holding that a settlement in a workers’ compensation case applies to a civil lawsuit for discrimination, harassment, and wrongful termination)
• Kizer v. Tristar Risk Management, 13 Cal. App. 5th 830 (2017) (affirming the denial of class certification and holding that plaintiffs must first provide adequate evidence of class-wide damages before a defendant is required to prove a class-wide affirmative defense such as a proper exempt classification)
• Southern California Pizza Wage and Hour Cases, 2016 WL 3513505 (Orange County Superior Court 2016) (denying class certification in a case filed on behalf of 25,000 employees of one of the largest franchisees of Pizza Hut restaurants, alleging failure to reimburse expenses for making pizza deliveries; the court denied class certification on the grounds that individualized issues predominated regarding any alleged underpayment of actual expenses incurred by each employee)
• Alvarez v. Hamilton Sundstrand Corp., 2016 WL 1243566 (Los Angeles Superior Court 2016) (granting summary judgment for the employer as to a class of over 1,100 current and former employees alleging misclassification after receiving a pay cut following a three-year furlough program)
• Kizer v. Tristar Risk Mgt., 2015 WL 10372896 (Orange County Superior Court 2015) (denying class certification based on alleged misclassification of over 600 insurance claims examiners as exempt employees)