McKenzie

McKenzie v. Federal Express Corp.

Good Law
765 F. Supp. 2d 1222·2011 WL 1757538·2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48707
United States District Court, Central District of CaliforniaApril 14, 2011Case CV 10-02420 GAF (PLAx)California6,734 words

Opinion

Opinion

Feess, J.

MEMORANDUM & ORDER REGARDING MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff LaMecia McKenzie (“McKenzie”) worked as a Federal Express Corpo ration (“FedEx”) truck driver from April 2003 to July of 2009. She was classified as an hourly employee and received periodic paychecks accompanied by wage statements that purportedly explained how the amount of her pay was derived. In this lawsuit, McKenzie claims that FedEx’s wage statements were, at best, ambiguous as to the hours worked and rates of pay, and that they were entirely deficient in their failure to identify the start date of the pay period. Because these deficiencies allegedly violated the requirements of the California Labor Code Section 226(a), McKenzie brings this lawsuit under the Private Attorney General Act (“PAGA”) seeking to recover penalties, and as a class action under various Labor Code sections and California’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”).

The Court now has under consideration cross motions for summary judgment. McKenzie contends that she is entitled to summary judgment on her First Cause of Action asserting a PAGA claim for FedEx’s wage statement deficiencies, which McKenzie contends are beyond…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.