SAN DIEGO (Legal Newsline) – The California Court of Appeal for the 4th Appellate District, Division One has reversed a decision in a wage and labor suit against a restaurant.
The appellate court reversed an order that sustained defendant Landry's Restaurants' demurrer without leave to amend and instructed the San Diego County Superior Court to "enter an order overruling that portion of Landry's' demurrer directed to the class claims."
Jorge Fierro, et al. filed a lawsuit against Landry’s Restaurant Inc. with claims it violated California labor laws and wage orders. Fierro also filed on behalf of a class representing others who allegedly experienced similar treatment from Landry’s. Landry’s responded and objected the complaint under the argument the complaint was blocked by the applicable statute of limitations.
According to the appellate court's May 14 ruling, the San Diego County Superior Court overruled the objection concerning Fierro’s individual claims and stated the statute of limitations argument was not “affirmatively on the face of the complaint."
The trial court also supported Landry's demurrer concerning the class claims without leave to amend under the argument a similar class action against Landry’s had already been filed and dismissed as that claim passed the five-year statute of limitations rule.
Fierro’s appeal relates to the matter concerning the order to support without leave to amend the objection of the class claims.
The appeals court disagreed with this matter and reversed and remanded it back to the lower court. The appeals court pointed out the nature and details of the prior dismissal is not known, so it cannot determine a ruling in the current case.
“Because we agree with the trial court that the statute of limitations defense does not appear affirmatively on the face of the complaint, there is no alternative basis on which to affirm the dismissal of the class claims,” the opinion stated.
The court also stated there are no facts or law that could back the lower court’s decision based on a previous class action claim that was dismissed. It also stated the dismissal doesn’t indicate whether it was concerning the same regulation that is in question for the current case.