Date: 12-12-2018

Case Style: Kennedy Donohue v. Amn Services, LLC

Case Number: D071865

Judge: Irion

Court: California Court of Appeals Fourth Appellate District, Division One on appeal from the Superior Court, County of San Diego

Plaintiff's Attorney: William B. Sullivan, Eric K. Yaeckel and Clint S. Engleson

Defendant's Attorney: DLA Piper, Mary Dollarhide and Betsey Boutelle

Description: In this wage and hour class and representative action, the trial court granted a
motion for summary judgment brought by defendant AMN Services, LLC (AMN), and
denied motions for summary adjudication of one cause of action and one affirmative
defense brought by plaintiff Kennedy Donohue, individually and on behalf of five
certified plaintiff classes she represents (together Plaintiffs). In her appeal from the
judgment, Donohue challenges the grant of AMN's motion for summary judgment and
the denial of her motion for summary adjudication of one of the causes of action. On
appeal, Donohue also challenges what she characterizes as the trial court's "fail[ure] to
hear a proper motion for reconsideration" of the summary judgment and summary
adjudication rulings.
As we explain, we lack jurisdiction to review the postjudgment order that resulted
in the court's decision not to hear Donohue's motion for reconsideration, and in our de
novo review of the summary judgment and summary adjudication rulings, we conclude
that Donohue did not meet her burden of establishing reversible error. Accordingly, we
affirm the judgment.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
" 'Because this case comes before us after the trial court granted a motion for
summary judgment, we take the facts from the record that was before the trial court when
it ruled on that motion.' " (Wilson v. 21st Century Ins. Co. (2007) 42 Cal.4th 713, 716-
717.) We consider all the evidence in the moving and opposing papers, liberally
construing and reasonably deducing inferences from Donohue's evidence, resolving any
doubts in the evidence in Donohue's favor. (Id. at p. 717; Code Civ. Proc., § 437c,
subd. (c).) For the most part, the relevant facts are not in dispute.
A. The Parties
AMN, a healthcare services and staffing company, recruits nurses for temporary
contract assignments. AMN employed Donohue as a nurse recruiter in its San Diego
2
office between September 2012 and February 2014. Donohue earned a base hourly rate
plus commissions, bonuses, and other forms of nondiscretionary performance-based pay.
B. AMN's Timekeeping System & Policies
During the time AMN employed Donohue, AMN used a computer-based
timekeeping system known as "Team Time" for all nonexempt employees, which
included nurse recruiters. Recruiters like Donohue used Team Time at their desktop
computers by clicking on an icon to open the program each day, after which they usually
made four entries: Recruiters would "punch in" for the day, "punch out" when they took
a meal break, punch back in when they returned from their meal break, and punch out at
the end of the day.
Team Time rounded recruiters' punch times—both punch in and punch out—to the
nearest 10-minute increment.1 To establish the proper hourly compensation, AMN
would convert each 10-minute increment to a decimal (to the nearest hundredth of a
minute),2 total the number of hours (to the nearest hundredth of a minute), and multiply
the total hours by the recruiter's hourly rate.
If a recruiter believed that a recorded punch time was inaccurate—e.g., the
recruiter may have worked while not clocked in or forgotten to punch in or out—AMN's
1 For example, all punch times between 7:55 a.m. and 8:04 a.m. would record as
8:00 a.m., and all punch times between 8:05 a.m. and 8:14 a.m. would record as 8:10 a.m.
2 For example, 20 minutes would be .333 hours, which would convert to .33 hours;
and 40 minutes would be .666 hours, which would convert to .67 hours. At times, we
refer to this format as "decimal hours."
3

written policy allowed the recruiter to contact his or her manager, who would then notify
the recruiter that his or her computer timecard had been unlocked and opened for
correction by the recruiter.
Recruiters did not have predetermined times during which they were required to
take meal or rest breaks, but AMN had a written policy by which recruiters were:
"provided meal breaks and authorized and permitted rest breaks in accordance with
California law;"3 "expected to take meal breaks as provided and rest breaks as authorized
and permitted and in accordance with this policy"; and "required to accurately record
their meal breaks on their time cards and to report to the Company if they are not
provided with a meal break or authorized and permitted a rest break or do not otherwise
take a meal break." More specifically, this written policy provided: "[Recruiters] who
work more than five hours per day are provided an uninterrupted 30 minute meal period
no later than the end of the [recruiter]'s fifth hour of work. If a [recruiter] works more
than five but no more than six (6) hours in a workday, the meal period may be waived by
mutual consent of the Company and [the recruiter]."
3 "An employer may not employ an employee for a work period of more than five
hours per day without providing the employee with a meal period of not less than 30
minutes . . . ." (Lab. Code, § 512, subd. (a).) (Further undesignated statutory references
are to the Labor Code.)
In general, California employers are required to provide rest periods of a specified
minimum duration—e.g., 10 minutes of paid rest for every four hours worked; and for
shifts of less than four hours, a 10-minute rest period after three and a half hours. (Cal.
Code Regs., tit. 8, §§ 11010-11150, subd. (12)(A) & § 11160, subd. (11)(A).) (Further
undesignated regulation references (tit. 8) are to the California Code of Regulations.)
"An employer shall not require an employee to work during a meal or rest or
recovery period mandated pursuant to an applicable statute, or applicable regulation . . . ."
(§ 226.7, subd. (b).)
4

Whenever there was noncompliance with the meal period requirements—e.g., if
the recruiter did not punch out to take a meal period before the end of the fifth hour of
work, or if the meal period was less than 30 minutes—AMN had a policy in place to
ensure what it considered an appropriate remedy. During the first few weeks of
Donohue's employment in September 2012, for any noncompliant meal period, Team
Time assumed a Labor Code violation, and the recruiter automatically received the full
statutory meal period penalty payment.4 At all relevant times after mid-September 2012,
if a recruiter's meal period was missed, shortened, or delayed, Team Time automatically
provided a drop-down menu that required the recruiter's response. If the recruiter
indicated that he or she chose not to take a timely 30-minute meal period, then AMN did
not pay a meal period penalty; however, if the recruiter indicated that he or she was not
provided the opportunity to take a timely 30-minute meal period, then AMN paid the
recruiter the full statutory meal period penalty.5 We note that Brinker Restaurant Corp.
v. Superior Court (2012) 53 Cal.4th 1004 (Brinker) became final in May 2012 and that
AMN changed its policy to provide the drop-down menu in September 2012. We infer
that AMN effected the change in an effort to comply with the holding in Brinker, where
4 During Donohue's first two weeks of employment by AMN, her time entries
triggered one such meal period violation, and AMN paid Donohue the appropriate
penalty.
5 After mid-September 2012, once Team Time required the recruiter to complete the
drop-down menu for any noncompliant meal period, on 31 occasions, Donohue selected
the option stating that she had been provided the opportunity, but chose not, to take a
nonworking 30-minute meal period before the end of the fifth hour of work. Donohue
never selected the option stating that AMN did not provide a compliant meal period.
5

the Supreme Court concluded that, although "an employer's obligation is to relieve its
employee of all duty" during a meal period, "the employer need not ensure that no work
is done"; rather, "the employee [is] thereafter at liberty to use the meal period for
whatever purpose he or she desires." (Id. at p. 1017.)
AMN's written policy directed recruiters to "accurately record their meal breaks
every day" as follows: "[Recruiters] should 'clock out' on their timesheet at the start of
their meal period and 'clock in' when they return to work. Meal breaks are unpaid.
[Recruiters] who are not provided a meal period as defined above will receive payment
for hours worked and an additional hour's pay. [Recruiters] who waive a meal period as
permitted by this policy, or who otherwise do not take a meal period which was provided
as defined above, are paid for hours worked. [Recruiters] who do not take a full and
timely meal period for any reason must report this on their time sheets and must also
report if they were provided or not provided, as defined in this policy, with the meal
period. [Recruiters] who report that they were provided a timely and full meal break but
did not take it, took a shorter break or a later break are representing that he/she did so
voluntarily."
In addition to hourly compensation, AMN also paid nurse recruiters like Donohue
"different types of non-discretionary commissions, performance bonuses, and other
incentive pay."6 These bonuses, which may be earned monthly or quarterly, are often
6 The details of these incentives are contained in formal publications from AMN,
copies of which were included as exhibits in support of AMN's summary judgment
motion.
6

due and calculable only after the pay period during which the work was performed; and
in the event additional overtime must be paid on such amounts, it is calculated by a
complex formula. These bonus-related overtime adjustments—which are not tied to the
recruiter's hourly wage but rather are "the mathematical equivalent of calculating the
bonus into the [recruiter's] regular rate of pay"—are denoted as "Flsa Ot" on the
recruiter's wage statement.7
C. The Litigation
Donohue filed the underlying wage and hour action in April 2014. The operative
second amended complaint (complaint), filed on behalf of Donohue individually and a
class of similarly situated AMN employees and former employees, contains allegations in
support of the following seven causes of action: (1) failure to provide meal and rest
periods in violation of sections 226.7 and 1197.1; (2) failure to pay overtime and
minimum wage in violation of sections 510 and 1197.1; (3) improper wage statements in
violation of section 226; (4) unreimbursed business expenses in violation of section 2802;
(5) waiting time penalties in violation of sections 201-203; (6) unfair business practices
in violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200; and (7) civil penalties
authorized by the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA),
section 2698 et seq.
In October 2015, the trial court certified five classes of nonexempt AMN
employees with the title of "Recruiter": (1) the overtime class; (2) the meal period class;
7 At times, AMN refers to the bonus-related retroactive overtime adjustment as a
"true-up."
7

(3) the rest period policy class; (4) the itemized wage statement class; and (5) the
ex-employee class (of former AMN employees who are entitled to relief based on
violations proven to the four prior classes of current AMN employees). The court denied
class certification to Donohue's claims related to unreimbursed business expenses, which
were based on an employee's use of a personal cell phone for AMN business.
Almost a year later, in September 2016, the parties filed cross-motions: AMN
sought summary judgment, or in the alternative, summary adjudication of eight
individual issues (which, if granted as to each issue, would result in summary
judgment);8 and Donohue sought summary adjudication of two issues. AMN and
Donohue filed numerous pleadings in support of their respective motions; AMN and
Donohue filed numerous pleadings in opposition to their adversary's motion; AMN and
Donohue filed replies to their adversary's oppositions; AMN and Donohue filed
objections to specified evidence submitted by their adversary; and AMN and Donohue
responded to the evidentiary objections of their adversary. Following oral argument, the
court took the matter under submission, ultimately granting AMN's motion for summary
judgment and denying Donohue's motion for summary adjudication. More specifically,
the court sustained certain evidentiary objections, overruled other evidentiary objections,
granted summary adjudication of all eight issues in AMN's motion—thereby resulting in
8 In an amended notice and motion filed a month later, AMN sought essentially the
same relief, relying exclusively on the supporting documentation filed in support of the
September 2016 motion.
8

the grant of summary judgment—and denied summary adjudication of the two issues
raised in Donohue's motion.
In December 2016, Donohue filed a motion for reconsideration of the order
granting AMN's motion for summary judgment and denying Donohue's motion for
summary adjudication.
Two days later, on December 14, 2016, the trial court filed its judgment in favor of
AMN and against Donohue, based on the grant of AMN's motion for summary judgment
and the denial of Donohue's motion for summary adjudication.
In January 2017, Donohue filed an ex parte application for an order striking the
filing of the judgment (so that the court could hear her pending motion for
reconsideration of the order granting AMN's motion for summary judgment and denying
Donohue's motion for summary adjudication) and allowing her to file a supplemental
brief in support of her motion for reconsideration. The court denied the application and
"vacated" Donohue's pending motion for reconsideration.
Donohue timely appealed from the judgment in February 2017.
9
II. STANDARDS OF APPELLATE REVIEW
Because the trial court's judgment is presumed correct, Donohue (as the appellant)
has the burden of establishing reversible error. (Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2
Cal.3d 557, 564 (Denham); Demara v. The Raymond Corp. (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 545,
552 (Demara) [appeal from defense summary judgment].)
A. Summary Proceedings Under Code of Civil Procedure Section 437c.
In both summary judgment and summary adjudication proceedings, with
exceptions inapplicable here, the pleadings—i.e., the complaint and the answer—
determine the scope of the relevant issues. (Port Medical Wellness, Inc. v. Connecticut
General Life Ins. Co. (2018) 24 Cal.App.5th 153, 169.)
A defendant's motion for summary judgment asks the court to determine, as a
matter of law, that the entire action has no merit. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (a).) A
cause of action "has no merit" if one or more of the elements of the cause of action
cannot be established or an affirmative defense to the cause of action can be established.
(Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (o).) As applicable here, a defendant's motion for
summary adjudication may ask the court to determine, as a matter of law, that one or
more causes of action or one or more claims for damages have no merit. (Code Civ.
Proc., § 437c, subd. (f)(1).)
A plaintiff's motion for summary judgment asks the court to determine, as a matter
of law, that the defendant has no defense to the action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c,
subd. (a).) A successful motion for summary judgment terminates the action without a
trial. (Ibid.) As applicable here, a plaintiff's motion for summary adjudication asks the
10
court to determine, as a matter of law, that there are no affirmative defenses to one or
more causes of action or to one or more claims for damages. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c,
subd. (f)(1).)
To be successful, a summary adjudication motion must completely dispose of the
entire cause of action, defense, damages claim, or duty to which the motion is directed.
(Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (f)(1).) A successful motion for summary adjudication
eliminates the need to prove or disprove a particular claim, leaving the remainder of the
case to go to trial—after which one judgment is entered covering the issues decided in the
motion and the trial. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subds. (k), (n).) A summary adjudication
motion "proceed[s] in all procedural respects as a motion for summary judgment." (Code
Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (f)(2).)
We review de novo the trial court's order granting or denying summary judgment
or summary adjudication. (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 860
(Aguilar) [summary judgment]; Jacks v. City of Santa Barbara (2017) 3 Cal.5th 248, 273
[summary adjudication].) As a practical matter, " ' "we assume the role of a trial court
and apply the same rules and standards" ' " which govern the trial court's determination of
the motion in the first instance. (Demara, supra, 13 Cal.App.5th at p. 552.)
B. Standards Applicable to the Grant of AMN's Motion for Summary Judgment
A moving defendant has the ultimate burden of persuasion that one or more
elements of the cause of action at issue "cannot be established" or that "there is a
complete defense to the cause of action." (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(2); Aguilar,
supra, 25 Cal.4th at pp. 849, 850, 853-854.) In attempting to achieve this goal, the
11
defendant has the initial burden of production to make a prima facie showing of the
nonexistence of any triable issue of material fact. (Aguilar, at pp. 850-851.) If the
defendant meets this burden, then the burden of production shifts to the plaintiff to
establish the existence of a triable issue of material fact. (Ibid.)
Applying these concepts in our de novo review of the grant of summary judgment
here, therefore, we first must determine whether AMN's initial showing establishes an
entitlement to judgment in AMN's favor. (Aguilar, supra, 25 Cal.4th at pp. 850-851;
Demara, supra, 13 Cal.App.5th at p. 552.) If so, we then determine whether Donohue's
responsive showing establishes a triable issue of material fact. (Aguilar, at pp. 850-851;
Demara, at p. 552.)
C. Standards Applicable to the Denial of Donohue's Motion for Summary
Adjudication
A moving plaintiff has the ultimate burden of persuasion that "there is no defense
to a cause of action," but only after that plaintiff first "has proved each element of the
cause of action entitling the party to judgment." (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(1);
Aguilar, supra, 25 Cal.4th at pp. 849, 850.) In attempting to achieve this goal, the
plaintiff has the initial burden of production to make a prima facie showing of the
nonexistence of any triable issue of material fact. (Aguilar, at pp. 850-851.) If the
plaintiff meets this burden, then the burden of production shifts to the defendant to
establish the existence of a triable issue of material fact. (Ibid.)
Applying these concepts in our de novo review of the denial of summary
adjudication here, therefore, we first must determine whether Donohue's initial showing
12
establishes an entitlement to judgment in her favor on the particular cause of action or
defense. (Aguilar, supra, 25 Cal.4th at pp. 850-851.) If so, we then determine whether
AMN's responsive showing establishes a triable issue of material fact either as to an
element of Donohue's cause of action or as to an applicable affirmative defense of AMN.
(Aguilar, at pp. 850-851.)
III. DISCUSSION
We begin with the recognition, understanding, and appreciation that the purpose of
the California statutes governing the employment relationship is "the protection of
employees"; and, for that reason, we " 'liberally construe the Labor Code and wage
orders[9] to favor the protection of the employees.' " (Troester, supra, 5 Cal.5th at
p. 839; accord, Prachasaisoradej v. Ralphs Grocery Co., Inc. (2007) 42 Cal.4th 217, 227
[because statutes governing the employer/employee relationship are "remedial in nature,"
they must be liberally construed "with an eye to promoting the worker protections they
were intended to provide"].)
AMN's motion for summary judgment, or in the alternative, summary
adjudication, is comprised of motions for summary adjudication of the following eight
issues:
9 The Industrial Welfare Commission is the state agency "empowered to promulgate
wage orders, which are legislative regulations specifying minimum requirements with
respect to wages, hours, and working conditions." (Augustus v. ABM Security Services,
Inc. (2016) 2 Cal.5th 257, 281, fn. 5.) The wage orders that the commission adopts " 'are
to be accorded the same dignity as statutes' . . . [and] take precedence over the common
law to the extent they conflict." (Troester v. Starbucks Corp. (2018) 5 Cal.5th 829, 839
(Troester).)
13

• AMN Issue No. 1—"AMN is entitled to summary adjudication on Plaintiffs'
certified overtime claim because AMN's methods of calculating and paying
overtime compensation are lawful."
• AMN Issue No. 2—"AMN is entitled to summary adjudication on Plaintiffs'
certified meal period claim because there is no evidence of a uniform policy or
practice to deny meal periods, and because Plaintiffs' theory that the rounding
practice resulted in meal period violations is not pled in the operative Complaint."
• AMN Issue No. 3—"AMN is entitled to summary adjudication on Plaintiffs'
certified rest period claim because there is no evidence of a uniform policy or
practice to deny rest periods."
• AMN Issue No. 4—"AMN is entitled to summary adjudication on Plaintiffs'
certified claims for wage statement violations because the format of AMN's wage
statements is lawful, and because Plaintiffs' wage-statement claims are otherwise
derivative of their other claims under the California Labor Code, which also fail."
• AMN Issue No. 5—"AMN is entitled to summary adjudication on Plaintiffs'
certified claim for waiting time penalties because it is derivative of Plaintiffs' other
claims under the California Labor Code, which also fail."10
• AMN Issue No. 6—"AMN is entitled to summary adjudication of Plaintiffs' claim
for violations of Business and Professions Code section 17200 because Plaintiffs
have identified no 'unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent' conduct that could support this
claim as a matter of law."11
• AMN Issue No. 7—"AMN is entitled to summary adjudication on Plaintiff
Donohue's claim for penalties under [PAGA, section ]2698 et seq., because this
10 Donohue does not mention this issue in her appellate briefs. Thus, she has
forfeited appellate review of the ruling granting the motion. (Atempa v. Pedrazzani
(2018) 27 Cal.App.5th 809, 830 (Atempa) [citing Cal. Rules of Court,
rule 8.204(a)(1)(B)]; Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th
939, 956 (Cahill) [when appellant fails to provide " ' "reasoned argument and citations to
authority, we treat the point as waived" ' "].) Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's
ruling as to AMN Issue No. 5.
11 Donohue does not mention this issue in her appellate briefs. Thus, she has
forfeited appellate review of the ruling granting the motion. (Atempa, supra, 27
Cal.App.5th at p. 830; Cahill, supra, 194 Cal.App.4th at p. 956.) Accordingly, we affirm
the trial court's ruling as to AMN Issue No. 6.
14

claim is derivative of Plaintiffs' other claims under the California Labor Code,
which also fail, and because Donohue has failed to exhaust her administrative
remedies."
• AMN Issue No. 8—"AMN is entitled to summary adjudication on Plaintiff
Donohue's individual claim for unreimbursed business expenses because she
cannot meet her burden to show that she actually incurred such expenses."12
In support of its alternative motion, AMN argued that, if each of the eight issues is
summarily adjudicated in its favor, then there is no triable issue of material fact in the
complaint, and AMN is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law.
In her motion, Donohue sought summary adjudication of the following two issues:
• Donohue Issue No. 1—"[AMN] possessed a standard time system in place for all
members of the certified class which improperly alters the recorded meal periods.
This policy violates California law in multiple ways. . . ."
• Donohue Issue No. 2—"[AMN's] 40th Affirmative Defense regarding 'Make Up
Time,' pursuant to [section ]513, cannot be established as a matter of law . . . ."13
On appeal, Donohue contends that, if the trial court had not erroneously denied summary
adjudication of Donohue Issue No. 1, she and the meal period class would be entitled to
$802,077.07 in meal period penalties—presumably based on the first cause of action for
failure to provide meal and rest periods.
12 On appeal, Donohue affirmatively states that she is not challenging the court's
ruling granting AMN's motion as to this issue (unreimbursed business expenses).
Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's ruling as to AMN Issue No. 8.
13 On appeal, Donohue raises no argument as to the denial of the motion as to
Donohue Issue No. 2. Thus, she has forfeited appellate review of this ruling. (Atempa,
supra, 27 Cal.App.5th at p. 830); Cahill, supra, 194 Cal.App.4th at p. 956.) Accordingly,
we affirm the trial court's ruling as to Donohue Issue No. 2, although we do mention it
further at part III.E., post.
15

Donohue does not present her arguments on appeal in a format by which we might
review each motion for summary adjudication or each cause of action in the complaint.
As a result, we are required to discuss each of Donohue's issues as Donohue presents
them in her opening brief in the context of the parties' motions in the trial court and the
trial court's rulings. As we explain, because Donohue did not meet her burden of
establishing reversible error on appeal, we affirm the judgment.
First, however, we explain why this court lacks jurisdiction to consider the trial
court's January 2017 postjudgment order denying Donohue's ex parte application.
A. The Court Lacks Jurisdiction to Consider the January 2017 Postjudgment Order
In this appeal, the parties briefed issues related to the postjudgment minute order
denying Donohue's ex parte application to strike entry of the judgment (to allow the court
to hear Donohue's motion for reconsideration) and to allow Donohue to file a
supplemental brief in support of her motion for reconsideration. The briefing did not
include a mention of jurisdiction to review this order, and we requested and received
supplement briefing.
As a postjudgment order that denies a motion to "strike" the entry of a document
or to file a supplemental brief, the January 2017 minute order was final and appealable.
(Code Civ. Proc., § 904.1, subd. (a)(2).) However, in her written notice, Donohue
appealed only from the "judgment . . . entered on December 14, 2016." She did not
appeal from the postjudgment order, and "if an order is appealable, [an] appeal must be
taken or the right to appellate review is forfeited." (In re Baycol Cases I & II (2011) 51
Cal.4th 751, 761, fn. 8; accord Pfeifer v. John Crane, Inc. (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 1270,
16
1315-1316 [" ' "[i]f a judgment or order is appealable, an aggrieved party must file a
timely appeal or forever lose the opportunity to obtain appellate review" ' "].) This is a
jurisdictional principle; an appellate court lacks the power to review an appealable order
if a timely appeal is not taken.14 (Van Beurden Ins. Services, Inc. v. Customized
Worldwide Weather Ins. Agency, Inc. (1997) 15 Cal.4th 51, 56; see Code Civ. Proc.,
§ 906.)
Alternatively, to the extent the January 2017 postjudgment order can be
considered a denial of a nonstatutory motion to vacate (as oppose to strike) the judgment,
such an order is not appealable. (Scognamillo v. Herrick (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 1139,
1146 [to hold otherwise would authorize two appeals from the same decision; any
assertions of error in the judgment can be reviewed on appeal from the judgment
itself15]; Forman v. Knapp Press (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 200, 203 [nonstatutory motion
to vacate a summary judgment is "akin to a motion for new trial," the denial of which is
not appealable].)
Donohue argues that she was not required to separately appeal from the
postjudgment order. Despite the express language of the written order (denying the
application to strike entry of the judgment and to allow supplemental briefing on her
14 At the outside, the time to appeal from the January 2017 postjudgment order was
180 days after entry of the order (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.104(a)(1)(C))—which, in
this case expired in July 2017.
15 Indeed, at part III.G., post, based on Donohue's argument in support of her appeal
from the judgment, we will consider the principal argument Donohue presented in her
motion for reconsideration.
17

then-pending motion for reconsideration of the order granting summary judgment),
Donohue tells us that the order "actually denied the pending motion for reconsideration
without a hearing." (Original italics and bolding.) She then suggests that, even though
she did not appeal from the postjudgment order, Code of Civil Procedure section 1008
allows for appellate review, because, under subdivision (g), although an order denying a
motion for reconsideration is generally not appealable, "if the order that was the subject
of a motion for reconsideration is appealable, the denial of the motion for reconsideration
is reviewable as part of an appeal from that order." There are at least two independent
problems with Donohue's position.
First, the present appeal is from the judgment, not from the order granting AMN's
motion for summary judgment; nor could it be, since an order granting summary
judgment is not appealable (Dang v. Maruichi American Corp. (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 604,
608, fn. 1). Thus, subdivision (g) of Code of Civil Procedure section 1008 is
inapplicable.
Moreover, contrary to Donohue's presentation in her supplement brief, the order
denying Donohue's ex parte application did not deny her then-pending motion for
reconsideration; the order denied Donohue's request to file an additional brief in support
of the then-pending motion for reconsideration and then "vacate[d]" the motion and the
hearing on the motion. The record is consistent: (1) In her application, Donohue
requested an order "Striking the Court's entry of judgment as premature" and "Allowing
[Donohue] to file a brief supplement to her [pending] Motion for Reconsideration"; (2) in
support of the application, Donohue's attorney testified that the relief being sought in the
18
application was "an order striking the entry of judgment as premature and seeking
permission to file a supplement to the motion for reconsideration"; and, (3) in its written
order denying Donohue's request, the court described the proceeding as Donohue's
"application for an order striking judgment and allow[ing Donohue] to supplement [her]
motion for reconsideration."
For the foregoing reasons, we lack jurisdiction to consider the January 2017
postjudgment order and express no opinion on the merits of the ruling(s) in the order.
B. The Trial Court Did Not Err in Ruling That, for Purposes of the Cross-Motions,
AMN's Rounding Policy Complies with California Law
At least three of the parties' motions for summary adjudication required the trial
court to determine whether AMN's timekeeping system for recruiter employees—in
particular, AMN's rounding policy—complied with California law.16 Thus, we analyze
this issue first and, as we explain, conclude that, based on the record in this appeal, the
rounding policy is compliant.
In California, the rule is that an employer is entitled to use a rounding policy "if
the rounding policy is fair and neutral on its face and 'it is used in such a manner that it
will not result, over a period of time, in failure to compensate the employees properly for
all the time they have actually worked.' " (See's Candy Shops, Inc. v. Superior Court
(2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 889, 907 (See's Candy I), quoting 29 C.F.R. § 785.48(b)
16 These motions include: AMN Issue No. 1; AMN Issue No. 2; and Donohue Issue
No. 1. (See pts. III.D., III.B.1. & III.B.2., respectively, post.)
19

(2012)17 and citing Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE) Enforcement
Policies and Interpretations Manual (2002 rev.) §§ 47.1, 47.2 (DLSE Manual)18.)
Under this standard, an employer's rounding policy is "fair and neutral" if " 'on
average, [it] favors neither overpayment nor underpayment' "; but such a policy is
unacceptable if it " 'systematically undercompensate[s] employees' " because it
17 The United States Department of Labor adopted a regulation (29 C.F.R. § 785.48)
under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA; 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq.) which
permits employers to use time-rounding policies in certain circumstances.
(See's Candy I, supra, 210 Cal.App.4th at p. 901.) In full, 29 Code of Federal
Regulations section 785.48(b) is entitled " 'Rounding' practices" and provides: "It has
been found that in some industries, particularly where time clocks are used, there has
been the practice for many years of recording the employees' starting time and stopping
time to the nearest 5 minutes, or to the nearest one-tenth or quarter of an hour.
Presumably, this arrangement averages out so that the employees are fully compensated
for all the time they actually work. For enforcement purposes this practice of computing
working time will be accepted, provided that it is used in such a manner that it will not
result, over a period of time, in failure to compensate the employees properly for all the
time they have actually worked." (Italics added.)
18 The DLSE is the California state agency charged with enforcing wage and hour
laws. (See's Candy I, supra, 210 Cal.App.4th at p. 902.) Statements in the DLSE
Manual are not binding on the courts, but merely persuasive. (Id. at pp. 902-903.) The
DLSE has adopted the federal standard set forth at 29 C.F.R. section 785.48(b), quoted at
footnote 17, ante: "The [DLSE] utilizes the practice of the U.S. Department of Labor of
'rounding' employee's hours to the nearest five minutes, one-tenth or quarter hour for
purposes of calculating the number of hours worked pursuant to certain restrictions."
(DLSE Manual, supra, § 47.1, quoted in See's Candy I, supra, 210 Cal.App.4th at
p. 902.) Further relying on this federal standard, See's Candy I also quoted as follows
from section 47.2 of the DLSE Manual: " 'There has been [a] practice in industry for
many years to follow this practice, recording the employees' starting time and stopping
time to the nearest 5 minutes, or to the nearest one-tenth or quarter of an hour.
Presumably, this arrangement averages out so that the employees are fully compensated
for all the time they actually work. For enforcement purposes this practice of computing
working time will be accepted by DLSE, provided that it is used in such a manner that it
will not result, over a period of time, in failure to compensate the employees properly for
all the time they have actually worked.' " (See's Candy I, at p. 902, italics added.)
20

" 'encompasses only rounding down.' " (See's Candy I, supra, 140 Cal.App.4th at
pp. 901-902, 907.) In See's Candy I, we reasoned that if an employer's rounding policy
"is neutral, both facially and as applied, the practice is proper under California law
because its net effect is to permit employers to efficiently calculate hours worked without
imposing any burden on employees." (Id. at p. 903.) Federal and state appellate courts
have applied this standard to California employers consistently since See's Candy I,
supra, 210 Cal.App.4th 889, in 2012. (E.g., AHMC Healthcare, Inc. v. Superior Court
(2018) 24 Cal.App.5th 1014, 1023-1024 (AHMC Healthcare) [rounding to nearest
quarter hour]; Silva v. See's Candy Shops, Inc. (2016) 7 Cal.App.5th 235, 249
(See's Candy II) [rounding to nearest 10th of an hour]; Corbin v. Time Warner
Entertainment–Advance/Newhouse Partnership (9th Cir. 2016) 821 F.3d 1069, 1076
(Corbin) [rounding to nearest quarter hour].) Indeed, earlier this year, in Troester, supra,
5 Cal.5th 829, our Supreme Court approvingly cited the See's Candy I rule and analysis
set forth above (Troester, at pp. 846-847)—although the court did not apply
See's Candy I, because the issue in Troester was whether "the de minimis doctrine found
in the FLSA," not the See's Candy I rounding standard, applied to the facts in that case
(Troester, at p. 848).
In the present case, in support of its motion and in opposition to Donohue's
motion, AMN submitted evidence in the form of expert testimony from a labor economist
who analyzed AMN's recruiter employees' time records from April 23, 2010, through
April 26, 2015 (rounding period). He explained that, under AMN's time entry system,
the records contain two entries for each employee "punch"—(1) the actual time that the
21
employee clocked in or out, and (2) the nearest 10-minute increment up or down. (See
fn. 1, ante.) AMN paid its employees on the basis of the rounded, not actual, times
clocking in and out.
With regard to Donohue and the nurse recruiters, AMN's expert analyzed the time
records during the rounding period logged by 311 recruiters—time records that reflected
more than 500,000 work-hours. Based on his detailed analysis, the expert testified that
AMN's practice of rounding punch times to the nearest 10-minute increment resulted
overall in "a net surplus of 1,929 work hours in paid time for the Nurse Recruiter class as
a whole."19 (Italics added.)
As to the ultimate issues, the expert opined: "The ten-minute rounding rule is thus
neutral; in the long run, neither the employer nor the employee benefits from this policy.
[¶] . . . [¶] . . . AMN's practice of rounding employee punch times to the nearest tenminute
increment did not result in any failure, over time, to properly compensate the
Nurse Recruiters as a class for all time they actually worked." (Italics added.) By this
evidence and the related evidence and argument that it paid all wages due based on its
calculation of the hours its recruiters worked, on this record AMN met its initial burden
of establishing that AMN's rounding policy is lawful.
19 With regard to Donohue personally, during the rounding period, AMN's practice
of rounding punch times to the nearest 10-minute increment resulted in a net surplus of
9.82 hours—which is an overpayment of approximately $151.03 based on Donohue's
hourly wage.
22

In an effort to meet her responsive burden, Donohue relied on the expert testimony
of a statistics professor.20 In her response to AMN's separate statement, Donohue
disputed AMN's evidence set forth above as follows: "[Donohue's] expert . . . found that
the Team Time system resulted in AMN failing to pay its employees for 2,631.583 hours
of actual time worked. This amounted to $47,959.30 in unpaid compensation owed to the
class." However, as the trial court correctly ruled, this evidence from Donohue did not
establish the existence of a triable issue of fact as to whether AMN's rounding policy was
lawful, because Donohue's expert only considered the recruiters' uncompensated time as
a result of " 'Short Lunches' " and " 'Delayed Lunches.' "21 Because he did not consider
evidence that Plaintiffs may have gained (and, in fact, did gain) compensable work time
by the rounding policy, he necessarily did not offset the amounts of uncompensated time
20 Actually, Donohue submitted the expert's declaration in support of her motion for
summary adjudication with no mention of the declaration in her brief in her opposition to
AMN's motion. Donohue did cite to the declaration in her response to AMN's separate
statement, which the trial court considered in ruling on AMN's motion; and AMN
responded to this evidence in its appellate brief on this issue. Therefore, we consider this
evidence on appeal as well. We begin by noting that, in her opening brief on appeal,
Donohue does not once mention AMN's expert—or even the fact that AMN presented
expert testimony—let alone discuss the expert evidence or attempt to apply it to the
procedural (summary judgment law) or substantive (wage and hour law) issues in the
appeal.
21 At oral argument, counsel for Donohue stated more than once that the trial court
erred by not considering Donohue's expert's testimony. The record does not support
counsel's statement. The court considered and rejected the expert's opinions as to the
neutrality of AMN's rounding policy, expressly explaining its reasoning in its order
granting AMN's motion.
23

by amounts of time for which Plaintiffs were compensated but not working.22
Accordingly, Donohue did not meet her responsive burden of establishing a triable issue
of material fact under the applicable legal standard for determining whether AMN's
rounding policy complied with California law.23 (See Aguilar, supra, 25 Cal.4th at
pp. 850-851.)
On this record, therefore, for purposes of AMN's motion, AMN established that
AMN's rounding policy during the rounding period was—in the language of
See's Candy I, supra, 210 Cal.App.4th at page 907—"fair and neutral on its face and . . .
'used in such a manner that it [did] not result, over a period of time, in failure to
compensate the [recruiter] employees properly for all the time they have actually
22 For example, assume that the deadline for offering a recruiter a timely meal period
is 1:00 p.m. (i.e., before the end of the fifth hour of work), but that the recruiter is not
offered the meal period until 1:04 p.m. Under AMN's rounding policy, the meal period is
timely because the actual punch of 1:04 p.m. is considered 1:00 p.m. Donohue's expert's
testimony is that, in this example, AMN's rounding policy results in at least one violation
(i.e., no meal break before the end of the fifth hour of work) and potentially second
violation (i.e., if the recruiter punches back in at any time between 1:25 p.m. and
1:33 p.m., since such a punch is considered 1:30 p.m., yet the actual time of the meal
period is less than 30 minutes). However, in forming his opinions, Donohue's expert
failed to consider the situation where 1:00 p.m. is the deadline for a timely meal period,
where the recruiter takes a meal period break at 12:55 p.m. (which is considered
1:00 p.m.) or punches back in at 1:34 p.m. (which is considered 1:30 p.m.). In both of
these hypotheticals, the recruiter received credit for work and payment of wages for time
during which the recruiter was on a meal period break.
23 To the extent Donohue attempted to prove, as part of her motion, that AMN's
rounding policy violated California law, Donohue's showing (described in the text, ante)
was insufficient to meet her initial burden; i.e., the burden never shifted to AMN to
establish the existence of a triable issue of material fact under Aguilar, supra, 25 Cal.4th
at pages 850-851.
24

worked.' " We apply this conclusion, as appropriate, to various arguments Donohue
raises in her appeal.
C. The Trial Court Did Not Err in Deciding Issues Related to the Meal Period Claims
In general, California law requires that an employee who works a shift of more
than five hours at one time must be allowed "a meal period of not less than 30 minutes."
(§ 512, subd. (a); tit. 8, § 11040, subd. 11(A).) If an employer fails to provide an
employee with such a meal period, then the employer must pay the employee one
additional hour of pay for each workday that the meal period is not provided. (§ 226.7,
subd. (c); tit. 8, § 11040, subd. 11(B).)
1. The Trial Court Did Not Err in Granting AMN's Motion for Summary
Adjudication AMN Issue No. 2
The trial court granted AMN's motion for summary adjudication of AMN Issue
No. 2, which was directed to Donohue's meal period claim on two independent grounds:
(1) There was no evidence of a uniform policy or practice to deny meal periods; and
(2) Donohue did not plead in the complaint that the rounding practice resulted in meal
period violations.
Donohue contends that "time record evidence can establish meal period
violations," citing and quoting from Safeway, Inc. v. Superior Court (2015) 238
Cal.App.4th 1138, 1159-1160 (Safeway), and Lubin v. The Wackenhut Corp. (2016) 5
Cal.App.5th 926, 951 (Lubin). Based on those authorities, Donohue then argues that,
because she provided evidence of "over 45,000 shortened and delayed meal periods"
directly from recruiters' time records (some capitalization and bolding omitted), the trial
25
court erred in granting AMN's motion directed to Donohue's meal period claim. More
specifically, Donohue relies on the evidence from her expert who testified that, based on
the actual times the recruiters punched out and in for their meal periods during the
rounding period, there were 40,110 " 'short' meal periods" (i.e., less than 30 minutes) and
6,651 " 'delayed' meal periods" (i.e., not offered until after the end of the fifth hour).
According to Donohue, any time records that establish a meal period violation
" 'immediately' " entitle the recruiter to a premium wage penalty payment. (Bolding
omitted.)
As we explained at part III.B. and footnote 22, ante, however, because Donohue's
expert based his testimony on the actual times the recruiters punched out and in for their
meal period, he neither considered nor accounted for an application of AMN's rounding
policy to the actual meal period punches. Thus, in response to AMN's evidence that
AMN's rounding policy was fair and neutral on its face and used in such a manner that,
over time, recruiters were compensated properly for the time they worked, Donohue's
evidence did not raise the existence of a triable issue of material fact as to the effect of
the rounding policy on the recruiters' actual punches when taking and returning from
meal periods.
Instead, Donohue argues that a rounding policy should never be applied to meal
period time punches, because application of such a policy "is contrary to the plain
language of the Labor Code [and a wage order.]" (Bolding and some initial capitalization
omitted.) Quoting from section 512 and title 8, section 11040, subdivision 11, Donohue
argues that, because the express terms of both the statute and regulation "require that
26
employees be provided 'with a meal period of not less than 30 minutes,' "24 any meal
period of less than 30 actual minutes is a per se violation of law. (Italics added.) As a
result of each such violation in the present case, Donohue's argument continues, AMN
owes each affected recruiter compensation for both the time worked during the 30-minute
break period and the related penalty. We reject Donohue's suggestion that the court
blindly apply section 512, subdivision (a), and title 8, section 11040, subdivision 11(A),
without consideration of rounding—a wage and hour procedure that has been accepted in
California since at least 2012 (See's Candy I, supra, 210 Cal.App.4th at p. 907) and cited
approvingly by our Supreme Court as recently as earlier this year (Troester, supra, 5
Cal.5th at pp. 846-847).
Initially, Donohue's reliance on Safeway, supra, 238 Cal.App.4th 1138, and Lubin,
supra, 5 Cal.App.5th 926, is misplaced. In each of those cases, the appellate court was
reviewing a ruling on class certification, not on the merits of the plaintiff class's claims.
(Safeway, supra, 238 Cal.App.4th at p. 1144; Lubin, supra, 5 Cal.App.5th at p. 931.)
Likewise, ABM Industries Overtime Cases (2017) 19 Cal.App.5th 277 (ABM), quoted by
Donohue in her reply brief, was an appeal following class certification procedures. (Id. at
pp. 283-284.) This distinction is significant. As Brinker explains: " 'The certification
question is "essentially a procedural one that does not ask whether an action is legally or
factually meritorious." ' . . . ' "In determining the propriety of a class action, the question
is not whether the plaintiff or plaintiffs have stated a cause of action or will prevail on the
24 Actually, Donohue cited subdivision 10 of title 8, section 11040. We assume that
she meant subdivision 11.
27

merits, but rather whether the requirements of [class certification] are met." ' . . .
[R]esolution of disputes over the merits of a case generally must be postponed until after
class certification has been decided . . . , with the court assuming for purposes of the
certification motion that any claims have merit." (Brinker, supra, 53 Cal.4th at p. 1023,
citations omitted.) During the class certification process, the court is concerned with
issues of commonality and whether the class is ascertainable; and in that context, an
employer's time records may establish a rebuttable presumption that shortened or delay
meal periods reflect a section 226.7 violation. (See Safeway, at pp. 1159-1160; Lubin, at
p. 951.)
The standard is different on summary judgment. We look to the evidence the
employer submits in support of its initial burden; and where an employer meets this
initial burden, the employer has rebutted any applicable presumption, and the burden
shifts to the employee to establish a triable issue of material fact.25 (See See's Candy II,
25 Donohue correctly notes that the rebuttable presumption analysis applied in
Safeway, Lubin, and ABM was based on Justice Werdegar's concurrence in Brinker,
supra, 53 Cal.4th at page 1053 ("If an employer's records show no meal period for a
given shift over five hours, a rebuttable presumption arises that the employee was not
relieved of duty and no meal period was provided."). (Safeway, supra, 238 Cal.App.4th
at pp. 1159-1160; Lubin, supra, 5 Cal.App.5th at p. 951.) However, we reject Donohue's
suggestion to apply this standard here. First, as we explained in the text, ante,
presumptions in summary judgment proceedings are different than presumptions that
might arise in class certification proceedings. Moreover, although Justice Liu joined
Justice Werdegar's rebuttable presumption proposal, the majority of justices did not
(Brinker, at p. 1055 [conc. opn. of Werdegar, J.]); and "concurring opinions are not
binding precedent" (In re Marriage of Dade (1991) 230 Cal.App.3d 621, 629).
Contrary to Donohue's suggestion, we do not read ABM as stating that Justice
Werdegar's rebuttable presumption applies to a plaintiff's substantive proof of damages.
As ABM explained, the burden of proof shifts to the employer in the wage and hour
28

supra, 7 Cal.App.5th at p. 254; see generally Aguilar, supra, 25 Cal.4th at pp. 850-851.)
Indeed, in the present case, when the trial court certified the plaintiff class in 2015, the
court explained that it was considering merely issues, including presumptions, related to
the "ascertainability and a well-defined community of interest" of the proposed class;
only later, if called on to decide the merits of the claims, would the court consider
"whether the uniform policies in place were, in fact, unlawful."
Further, Donohue's position that AMN's rounding policy may never be applied to
meal period time punches is insupportable on the present record.
Whenever a recruiter's rounded punch times resulted in a noncompliant meal
period time (i.e., either a meal period of less than 30 minutes or no opportunity for a meal
period before the beginning of the sixth hour of work), a drop-down menu appeared on
the recruiter's computer screen beneath the punch times for the date in question.26
Before the recruiter could electronically submit the time, the recruiter was required to
select one of the following options: (1) the recruiter was provided the opportunity to take
a compliant meal period (i.e., a 30-minute break before the end of the fifth hour of work),
"but chose not to"; (2) the recruiter was provided the opportunity to take a compliant
meal period, "but chose to take a shorter/later break"; or (3) the recruiter was not
context only where " 'an employer's compensation records are so incomplete or inaccurate
that an employee cannot prove his or her damages' " or " ' "the employer has failed to
keep records required by statute." ' " (ABM, supra, 19 Cal.App.5th at p. 311.) Those
facts are not present in this case.
26 Actually, AMN's policy (of requiring the recruiter to select from a drop-down
menu any time the rounded time indicated a noncompliant meal period) began a few
weeks after Donohue began working at AMN.
29

provided an opportunity to take a compliant meal period. If a recruiter checked the third
option, AMN automatically paid the recruiter the required section 226.7, subdivision (c)
penalty. Based on this procedure, Donohue suggests that, because the drop-down menu
only appeared after application of AMN's rounding policy, the policy masked or covered
up meal period violations.
However, there is no basis on which to deny application of AMN's Californiacompliant
rounding policy to a recruiter's meal period.
First, contrary to the premise to Donohue's argument—namely, that any
noncompliant meal period entitles an employee to a penalty (and perhaps additional
wages)—by providing the employee the above-described three choices in the drop-down
menu, AMN's policy at issue complied with Brinker, supra, 53 Cal.4th at page 1017
(Although "an employer's obligation is to relieve its employee of all duty" during a meal
period, "the employer need not ensure that no work is done"; rather, "the employee [is]
thereafter at liberty to use the meal period for whatever purpose he or she desires.").
More to the point, in the present appeal, we are tasked with determining whether
AMN's rounding policy "is neutral, both facially and as applied." (See's Candy I, supra,
210 Cal.App.4th at p. 903; accord, AHMC Healthcare, supra, 24 Cal.App.5th at
pp. 1023-1024; See's Candy II, supra, 7 Cal.App.5th at p. 249; Corbin, supra, 821 F.3d at
p. 1076; see also Troester, supra, 5 Cal.5th at pp. 846-847) This standard contains no
30
limitation to suggest it does not apply (or should not be applied) to meal periods.27
Neither Donohue's briefs nor our independent research has disclosed any such limitation,
and the policy that we considered, applied, and resulted in our decision in See's Candy I,
supra, 210 Cal.App.4th at page 903—namely, "recogni[tion] that time-rounding is a
practical method for calculating worktime and can be a neutral calculation tool for
providing full payment to employees"—applies to the timekeeping of meal periods as
well as to timekeeping of the beginning of an employee's shift as in See's Candy I.
Donohue contends that a rounding policy should never be applied to meal periods
because to do so "would quickly eviscerate employee[s'] statutory right to full 30 minute
meal periods," especially in the context of rounding to the nearest quarter hour.28
However, Donohue's hypothetical is insufficient to rebut—i.e., to raise a triable issue of
fact regarding—the evidence AMN submitted in support of its motion. This evidence
indicates that, over time, AMN did not fail to properly compensate the recruiters, as a
class, for all the time they worked based on the rounding policy in effect.29 As such,
27 Donohue argues that "rounding always negatively impacted employees' meal
periods." We disagree. The neutrality of AMN's rounding policy is demonstrated by the
following illustration: If the recruiter punched out at 12:55 p.m. and punched back in at
1:24 p.m., the recruiter would have had a 39 minute meal period—which complies with
both section 512, subdivision (a) and title 8, section 1104, subdivision 11(A)—and also
would have been paid for nine minutes of this time, since rounding would show a punch
out at 1:00 p.m. and a punch back in at 1:30 p.m.
28 This case does not involve rounding to the nearest quarter of an hour.
29 In her opening brief on appeal, Donohue relies on evidence from her expert
regarding the effect of the application of AMN's rounding policy to meal periods.
31

Donohue did not establish that Plaintiffs were entitled either to additional wages or
penalties.
Donohue next complains that AMN's rounding policy is not "neutral" because the
rounded time never results in the issuance of a meal period penalty when the actual time
does not reflect a violation (i.e., when the recruiter receives a 30-minute meal period
before the sixth hour of work). Donohue misconstrues the concept of neutrality in this
context. The same argument could be made about shift hours—i.e., rounded time will
never result in the issuance of a penalty when the actual time does not reflect a
violation—but the neutrality of a rounding policy does not depend on the frequency of
penalties. Under the See's Candy I test, the court is to look at how often the application
of the rounding policy results in rounding up and rounding down, not the number of times
penalties are assessed or avoided as a result of rounding up and down. (See's Candy I,
supra, 210 Cal.App.4th at p. 902 [a rounding policy that " 'encompasses only rounding
down' " is unacceptable].)
According to Donohue, this evidence "caused class members to not be paid for a total of
2,631.583 hours recorded on their time records as a result of 'short' and 'delayed' meal
periods." First, this evidence does not support Donohue's theory that any recruiter's right
to a statutory meal period was "eviscerate[d]" as a result of AMN's rounding policy. In
addition, as we explained at part III.B., ante, this evidence does not establish the
existence of a triable issue of fact as to the validity of the rounding policy, because
Donohue's expert did not consider, let alone offset these amounts by, evidence that
recruiters gained compensable time by the rounding policy. In fact, AMN's expert
testified that, for meal periods, the rounding of punch times to the nearest 10-minute
increment "produced a net surplus of 85 work hours in paid time for the Nurse Recruiter
class as a whole"; i.e., as a group the recruiters were "paid for more work time under the
time-rounding policy than if they had been paid to the minute of their punch-in and
punch-out times for meal periods."
32

As a final argument, Donohue relies on her deposition testimony30 in suggesting
that " 'lunches were really short' " and that she was "denied 'ample' meal periods" because
of " 'downward pressures[]' from AMN . . . to constantly remain on the phones." She
further testified that she " 'was routinely discouraged from taking meal and rest breaks . . .
and was in fact called back to [her] desk—over the intercom—on several occasions when
attempting to take meal and rest breaks.' " However, this testimony does not respond to
the undisputed evidence that AMN had in place an effective complaint procedure for an
employee to inform the employer of any potential violation, but Donohue failed to inform
AMN of any such violation. (See fn. 5, ante.) Moreover, these generic comments and
Donohue's related testimony do not raise a triable issue of fact given that the evidence of
her specific time entries—i.e., rounded punch times—do not establish (or imply)
noncompliant meal periods for which Donohue did not receive an appropriate penalty
payment. Finally, we do not consider Donohue's declaration testimony in opposition to
AMN's motion to be substantial evidence of the existence of a triable issue of fact, since
it is inconsistent with the following certified statement that she submitted with each
timesheet: "I was provided the opportunity to take all meal breaks to which I was
entitled, or, if not, I have reported on this timesheet that I was not provided the
opportunity to take all such meal breaks[.]" (Italics added.) (See D'Amico v. Board of
Medical Examiners (1974) 11 Cal.3d 1, 21 [declaration from party opposing summary
judgment disregarded where testimony inconsistent with prior sworn statement
30 As we explain at part III.H., post, even though the trial court excluded this
testimony, we have considered it in our de novo review on appeal.
33

(discovery responses)]; Turley v. Familian Corp. (2017) 18 Cal.App.5th 969, 981
[same].)
For these reasons, the trial court did not err in granting AMN's motion for
summary adjudication of AMN Issue No. 2 related to alleged meal period violations.
Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's ruling as to AMN Issue No. 2.
2. The Trial Court Did Not Err in Denying Donohue's Motion for Summary
Adjudication of Donohue Issue No. 1
The trial court denied Donohue's motion for summary adjudication of Donohue
Issue No. 1, which was directed to Donohue's meal period claim as follows: "[AMN]
possessed a standard time system in place for all members of the certified class which
improperly alters the recorded meal periods. This policy violates California law in
multiple ways. . . ."
On appeal, after discussing AMN's motion for summary adjudication of the meal
period claims, Donohue argues that "[b]ased on the same factual record . . . it was also
error for the trial court to deny [her] motion for adjudication of the meal period issue."
(Italics added.) More specifically, Donohue argues that AMN did not rebut her evidence
of meal period violations. We disagree.
We, too, base our decision on the same factual record set forth above. As we just
explained at parts III.B. and III.C.1., ante, AMN's showing established both that AMN's
rounding policy complied with California law and that AMN's rounding policy applied to
recruiters' meal period time punches. Accordingly, even if we assume that Donohue met
her initial burden of showing that Plaintiffs experienced shortened or delayed meal
34
periods (which we do not decide), AMN met its responsive burden by establishing that,
upon applying AMN's rounding policy, AMN has a complete defense to Donohue's claim
of meal period violations contained in the first cause of action in the complaint. Contrary
to Donohue's proposed issue to be summarily adjudicated, the evidence establishes that
AMN's timekeeping system neither "improperly alter[ed] the recorded meal periods" nor
violated California law.
For these reasons, the trial court did not err in denying Donohue's motion for
summary adjudication of Donohue Issue No. 1 related to alleged meal period violations.
Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's ruling as to Donohue Issue No. 1.
D. The Trial Court Did Not Err in Summarily Adjudicating Donohue's
Wage Statement Claim in Favor of AMN
Section 226, subdivision (a) requires that employers like AMN provide
"an accurate itemized statement in writing showing . . . (2) total hours worked by the
employee, . . . and (9) all applicable hourly rates in effect during the pay period and the
corresponding number of hours worked at each hourly rate by the employee[.]" Where
an "employee suffer[s] injury as a result of a knowing and intentional failure by an
employer to comply with subdivision (a)[,]" section 226, subdivision (e)(1) provides for
an award of damages to the employee. As applicable to the present case, a recruiteremployee
will be deemed to suffer injury "if the employer fails to provide accurate and
complete information as required by any one or more of items (1) to (9), inclusive, of
subdivision (a) and the employee cannot promptly and easily determine from the wage
statement alone . . . [¶] . . . [t]he amount of the gross wages or net wages paid to the
35
employee during the pay period or any of the other information required to be provided
on the itemized wage statement pursuant to items (2) . . . and (9) of subdivision (a)."
(§ 226, subd. (e)(2)(B)(i), italics added.)
In the complaint, Donohue asserted a cause of action under section 226, alleging
that AMN provided wage statements that failed to state all hours Plaintiffs worked (in
violation of subd. (a)(2)) and failed to identify all applicable regular and overtime rates of
pay (in violation of subd. (a)(9)). In particular, Donohue alleged that these three failures
in AMN's wage statements occurred "at the designation for 'Flsa Ot' "—where AMN did
not provide amounts for either the hourly rate or the number of hours.
On appeal, Donohue argues first that, with regard to the line item for "Flsa Ot"
payments, the AMN wage statements do not provide accurate hourly rates, total hours
worked, or inclusive dates of the pay period.31 However, Donohue forfeited appellate
consideration of the arguments related to these wage statement issues, because she failed
to raise them in her opposition to AMN's motion in the trial court. (Cable Connection,
Inc. v. DIRECTV, Inc. (2008) 44 Cal.4th 1334, 1350, fn. 12 [" 'A party is not permitted to
31 According to testimony from AMN's supervisor of corporate payroll of AMN's
parent company: Recruiters like Donohue were eligible to receive "different types of
non-discretionary commissions, performance bonuses, and other incentive pay" in
addition to their hourly compensation; these bonuses, which may be earned monthly or
quarterly, are often "due and calculable only after the pay period during which the work
was performed"; in the event additional overtime must be paid on such amounts, it is not
tied to the recruiter's hourly wage, but rather is calculated by a complex formula which is
"the mathematical equivalent of calculating the bonus into the [recruiter's] regular rate of
pay"; and "[t]hese bonus-related overtime adjustments are denoted as 'Flsa Ot' on a
[recruiter's] wage statement" and may denote a payment that comprises multiple
adjustments for multiple bonuses being paid during the same pay period. (Italics added.)
36

change his position and adopt a new and different theory on appeal. To permit him to do
so would not only be unfair to the trial court, but manifestly unjust to the opposing
litigant.' "].) An appellate court "generally will not consider an argument 'raised in an
appeal from a grant of summary judgment . . . if it was not raised below . . . .' " (Noe v.
Superior Court (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 316, 335; accord, North Coast Business Park v.
Nielsen Construction Co. (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 22, 28-29 [permitting a change of theory
on appeal from the grant of a defense summary judgment would be "manifestly unjust to
the opposing parties, unfair to the trial court, and contrary to judicial economy"].)
Donohue next contends that triable issues of fact exist as to whether recruiters
could " 'promptly and easily determine' " their actual hours worked from the wage
statements alone, as required by subdivisions (a)(2) and (e)(2)(B) of section 226. (Italics
omitted.) In this context, " 'promptly and easily determine' means a reasonable person
would be able to readily ascertain the information without reference to other documents
or information.' " (§ 226, subd. (e)(2)(C).) Based on this standard, Donohue argues that
AMN " 'alters' its employees' work times prior to payment, but does not explain to its
employee that it is doing so." In support of this statement, Donohue cites AMN's
response to Donohue's separate statement and a copy of Donohue's wage statement from
a pay period in 2013. However, because a separate statement is "mere assertion" and
"not itself evidence of anything" (Stockinger v. Feather River Community College (2003)
111 Cal.App.4th 1014, 1024 (Stockinger), disapproved on another ground in Regents of
University of California v. Superior Court (2018) 4 Cal.5th 607, 634, fn. 7), the separate
37
statement cannot raise a triable issue of material fact. Likewise, a wage statement
without more does not raise a triable issue of material fact.
Even if we were to consider the evidence cited in the separate statement on which
Donohue relies, the result is no different. Donohue's separate statement citation
references the following material facts which AMN does not dispute: "In its Wage
Statements, AMN sometimes represents 20 minutes of work-time as '.34' "; "In its Wage
Statements, AMN sometimes represents 20 minutes of work-time as ".33' "; "In its Wage
Statements, AMN never provides its nonexempt employees with any sort of written
explanation which states that both '.33' and '.34' can mean 20 minutes of work-time"; "20
minutes is exactly one-third of 60 minutes"; and "33 is not exactly one-third of 100."32
(Bolding and underscoring omitted.) Even if we assume that, by these statements, AMN
failed to provide accurate and complete information as required by section 226,
subdivision (a), Donohue forfeited appellate consideration of the issue, because she did
not present argument, evidence, or authority as to how or why a recruiter is unable to
"promptly and easily determine from the wage statement alone" the actual time worked—
which is the required showing before an employee can be "deemed to suffer injury"
according to subdivision (e)(1)(B) of section 226.33 (Cal. Rules of Court,
32 Donohue does not tell us which of these statements—or how any of these
statements—raises a triable issue of material fact.
33 In the trial court, Donohue submitted two declarations, one in opposition to
AMN's motion and one in support of her motion. She did not mention any confusion or
inability to determine the time worked based on the information contained on her wage
38

rule 8.204(a)(1)(B) [each point in a brief must be supported "by argument and, if
possible, by citation to authority"]; see Pizarro v. Reynoso (2017) 10 Cal.App.5th 172,
181 [failure to present coherent argument forfeits appellate review].)
In her reply brief on appeal, Donohue suggests that, because AMN converted the
hours and minutes to hours and decimal hours, she or other recruiters generally were
unable to promptly and easily determine the actual time worked.34 We reject such a
suggestion. First, Donohue forfeited appellate consideration of the argument, because
she raised it for the first time in her reply brief on appeal. (Varjabedian v. City of
Madera (1977) 20 Cal.3d 285, 295, fn. 11 ["Obvious reasons of fairness militate against
consideration of an issue raised initially in the reply brief of an appellant."]; Padron v.
Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc. (2017) 16 Cal.App.5th 1246, 1267
["Any new substantive arguments raised by [an appellant] in its reply brief are deemed
forfeited."].) In any event, even if we were to consider Donohue's tardy presentation,
Donohue did not include evidence or authority for the suggestion that, by the use of
decimal hours rather than minutes, AMN did not provide a wage statement from which
statement; nor did she present any evidence of any other recruiter who was confused or
unable to determine the time worked.
34 For example, actual time of 1 hour and 30 minutes is converted to 1.5 hours, and
actual time of 1 hour and 40 minutes is converted to 1.67 hours.
39

the amount of time worked can be, in the language of section 226, subdivision (e)(1)(B),
"promptly and easily determined."35
Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's ruling as to AMN Issue No. 4.
E. The Trial Court Did Not Err in Summarily Adjudicating Donohue's
Overtime Claim in Favor of AMN
Section 510, subdivision (a) requires employers like AMN to pay employees like
Plaintiffs "one and one-half times the regular rate of pay" for "[a]ny work in excess of
eight hours in one workday and any work in excess of 40 hours in any one workweek and
the first eight hours worked on the seventh day of work in any one workweek."
As part of the second cause of action in the complaint, Donohue alleged that AMN
failed to pay required overtime wages in violation of section 510, subdivision (a).36
35 In her reply brief on appeal, Donohue refers us to two pages of a separate
statement (with five separately numbered paragraphs), a copy of one of Donohue's wage
statements, and one page of the deposition transcript of a witness, C.B. The separate
statement is neither evidence nor argument. (Stockinger, supra, 111 Cal.App.4th at
p. 1024.) Although the copy of the wage statement contains a decimal hour, Donohue
failed to present evidence or argument that she or any of Plaintiffs could not promptly
and easily determine the amount of time worked.
At her deposition, C.B. testified that, in order to determine how many minutes .83
of an hour is, she would have to refer to a chart, although she guessed that it was 50
minutes. However, Donohue has not explained or provided evidence as to who C.B. is,
and because Donohue did not cite this evidence until her reply brief on appeal, we decline
to consider it. In any event, Donohue does not explain, or attempt to explain, how or why
she or any recruiter was not able to promptly or easily determine the amount of time
worked when it was expressed in decimal hours (.83 of an hour) rather than minutes (50
minutes). Given that only basic skills in arithmetic are required to convert minutes to
decimal hours and decimal hours to minutes, we will not infer a triable issue of material
fact without evidence that any recruiter was delayed or had difficulty in determining the
amount of time worked.
40

More specifically, Donohue alleged the following two types of overtime payment
violations: (1) " 'time shaving,' " which included both the rounding of time when
recruiters punched in and out, and the conversion of time that was recorded in minutes to
decimal hours for purposes of multiplying the amount of time by the overtime hourly
rate; and (2) failure to include " 'Referral Bonus[es],' " " 'monthly commissions,' " and
" 'RAMP' pay"37 in calculating commissions and nondiscretionary bonuses when
determining a recruiter's regular rate of pay, which results in an improper rate of
overtime pay.
However, on appeal, Donohue does not mention these two alleged overtime
violations. Instead, she argues only that the trial court erred in adjudicating her overtime
claim based on what she characterizes as AMN's "makeup time" defense.38 Thus,
36 The second cause of action also contains a claim for failure to pay minimum wage
in violation of section 1197, but on appeal Donohue does not mention, let alone raise an
argument, related to the minimum wage claim or section 1197.
37 Donohue does not tell us, either in the complaint or her appellate briefing, what
she considers referral bonuses, monthly commissions, or RAMP pay.
38 Without deciding whether the makeup time argument is part of Donohue's claim or
AMN's defense (which the parties dispute), it is based on section 513, which provides in
part: "If an employer approves a written request of an employee to make up work time
that is or would be lost as a result of a personal obligation of the employee, the hours of
that makeup work time, if performed in the same workweek in which the work time was
lost, may not be counted towards computing the total number of hours worked in a day
for purposes of the overtime requirements specified in Section 510 . . . . An employee
shall provide a signed written request for each occasion that the employee makes a
request to make up work time pursuant to this section. . . ." (Italics added.)
Donohue assures us on appeal that AMN's allegedly improper designation of
makeup time is not part of her claim for overtime. She explains that her overtime claim
is based solely on the "allegation . . . that overtime was not paid in some instances where
41

Donohue did not meet her burden of establishing a triable issue of material fact in
response to AMN's initial showing. (Aguilar, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 850-851.)
We are aware that, in granting AMN's motion for summary adjudication directed
to the overtime claim, the trial court included as an alternative ruling that Donohue was
required to, but did not, plead that AMN's makeup time policy resulted in overtime
violations. However, the court's principal ruling was on another ground—namely that,
because AMN's application of its rounding policy complied with California law, "AMN's
methods of calculating and paying overtime compensation are lawful"; yet Donohue does
not argue on appeal that the court erred in so ruling on summary adjudication. Stated
differently, even if we assume that the trial court erred in denying Donohue's motion as to
the makeup time defense, any such error would be harmless (see discussion of prejudice
at pt. III.H., post): Because AMN was entitled to summary adjudication on its motion
directed to the overtime claim on grounds unrelated to the issue of makeup time, the
result on the overtime claim is unaffected by the court's ruling, even if erroneous, that
Donohue did not plead that AMN's makeup time policy resulted in overtime violations.
Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's ruling as to AMN Issue No. 1—without
expressing an opinion as to the effect of AMN's makeup policy on Donohue's overtime
claim.
over 8 hours in a day were worked by employees." AMN therefore properly directed its
motion to the allegations in the complaint, where Donohue alleged improper overtime
payments based on time-shaving (rounding of time and use of decimal hours) and failure
to include certain commissions or bonuses in the calculation of regular time, and
therefore, overtime—none of which involved the application of makeup time.
42

F. The Trial Court Did Not Err in Summarily Adjudicating Donohue's Rest Period
Claim in Favor of AMN
A rest period mandated by state law, which includes Industrial Welfare
Commission wage orders, "shall be counted as hours worked, for which there shall be no
deduction from wages." (§ 226.7, subd. (d).) In general, California employers are
required to provide rest periods of a specified minimum duration—e.g., 10 minutes of
paid rest for every four hours worked; and for shifts of less than four hours, a 10-minute
rest period after three and a half hours. (Tit. 8, §§ 11010-11150, subd. (12)(A) &
§ 11160, subd. (11)(A).) An employer is precluded from requiring an employee to work
during a rest period, and an employer that fails to provide such a required rest period
"shall pay" each affected employee one hour's pay for each workday the employee was
not provided the appropriate rest period. (§ 226.7, subds. (b), (c); tit. 8, §§ 11010-11150,
subd. (12)(B) & § 11160, subd. (11)(D).) In the present action, Donohue alleges that, by
failing to have a compliant rest period policy, AMN violated section 226.7,
subdivision (b), and title 8, section 11040, subdivision (12), which entitled Plaintiffs to
recover damages.
In its motion, AMN sought to summarily adjudicate the rest period claim "because
there is no evidence of a uniform policy or practice to deny rest periods." Donohue
argues that the trial court improperly granted the motion by relying "on a generalization
that Ms. Donohue took 'some' rest breaks, . . . improperly ignor[ing] all of her testimony
in which she said she was often denied other rest breaks." Donohue characterized the
pertinent allegations in the complaint to be "that AMN did not provide all legally-
43
compliant rest periods due," expressly asserting that "[t]he testimony in the record
confirmed [her] allegations to be true."39 By this argument, Donohue necessarily
acknowledges that AMN met its initial burden, suggesting only that she met her
responsive burden of establishing the existence of a triable issue of material fact.
In response to AMN's showing that its written policy complies with California law
(which Donohue does not challenge on appeal), Donohue refers us to one page of her
declaration and eight pages of her deposition transcript and argues that "(1) she and
others were frequently denied rest breaks altogether when work got too busy, and (2) that
[AMN] would often interrupt her (call her back to work) before her rest period was
finished." The problem with Donohue's argument is that the evidence on which she relies
does not establish either a general noncompliant company policy or the denial of any
specific required rest period(s).
In her declaration, Donohue testified that she "was routinely discouraged from
taking meal and rest breaks" and even called back to her desk "on several occasions"
when attempting to take a rest break.40 However, neither of these events establishes
39 Citing Evidence Code section 356, Donohue argues on appeal that, because the
court considered a portion of Donohue's deposition testimony, "[t]he rule of completeness
requires all of Ms. Donohue's testimony on the subject of rest periods be considered."
We disagree. Evidence Code section 356 provides in part: "Where part of an act,
declaration, conversation, or writing is given in evidence by one party, the whole on the
same subject may be inquired into by an adverse party[.]" (Italics added.) The trial court
was not required to consider deposition testimony sua sponte, and there is no indication
that the trial court did not consider any evidence that Donohue properly cited.
40 As we explain at part III.H., post, even though the trial court excluded this
testimony, we have considered it in our de novo review on appeal.
44

either a noncompliant company policy or the denial of a compliant rest period (or, in the
event of a noncompliant rest period, nonpayment of the required premium).
At her deposition Donohue expressly testified that AMN allowed recruiters to take
rest breaks, commenting only that taking such breaks "was highly frowned upon" and "it
was not a commonality to take rest periods at all." Significantly, Donohue could not
remember what she was told or what was communicated to her to cause her to believe
that taking rest breaks was uncommon or disapproved. Although Donohue later
identified a "recruitment manager" in "upper division" who told her "just
conversationally" that she should make telephone calls instead of taking breaks, Donohue
confirmed that the manager never stated that taking a rest period was " 'frowned upon' "
or otherwise precluded. All of that said, Donohue testified unequivocally that no one—
and repeated later that she could not remember any manager or supervisor who—ever
told her that she could not take a rest break.
For these reasons, the evidence on which Donohue relies is insufficient to
establish the existence of a triable issue of material fact in response to AMN's initial
showing that, in the terms of the issue to be summarily adjudicated, "there is no evidence
of a uniform policy or practice to deny rest periods." Accordingly, we affirm the trial
court's ruling as to AMN Issue No. 3.
G. The Trial Court Did Not Err in Summarily Adjudicating Donohue's PAGA Claim
in Favor of AMN
Section 2699, subdivisions (a) and (g)(1), which are part of PAGA (§ 2698
et seq.), allow "an aggrieved employee" to recover civil penalties for certain violations of
45
the Labor Code.41 (Arias v. Superior Court (2009) 46 Cal.4th 969, 980.) Under PAGA,
an " 'aggrieved employee' " is defined as an employee "against whom one or more of the
alleged [Labor Code] violations was committed." (§ 2699, subd. (c).)
" 'Before the PAGA was enacted, an employee could recover damages,
reinstatement, and other appropriate relief but could not collect civil penalties. The
Labor and Workforce Development Agency . . . collected them. The PAGA changed
that.' " (Villacres v. ABM Industries Inc. (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 562, 578; accord,
Thurman v. Bayshore Transit Management, Inc. (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 1112, 1126
["Section 2699, subdivision (a) . . . 'permits aggrieved employees to recover civil
penalties that previously could be collected only by [the agency' "].) "In PAGA, the
Legislature created an enforcement mechanism for aggrieved employees to file
representative actions to recover penalties in cases in which there is no private cause of
action as an alternative to enforcement by the Labor Commissioner." (Rope v. AutoChlor
System of Washington, Inc. (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 635, 650, superseded in part
on another issue by statute.) Under PAGA, "the aggrieved employee acts as the proxy or
41 "Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any provision of th[e Labor C]ode
that provides for a civil penalty to be assessed and collected by the Labor and Workforce
Development Agency . . . for a violation of this code, may, as an alternative, be recovered
through a civil action brought by an aggrieved employee on behalf of himself or herself
and other current or former employees pursuant to the procedures specified in
Section 2699.3." (§ 2699, subd. (a).)
"[A]n aggrieved employee may recover the civil penalty described in
subdivision (f) [, which deals with civil penalties,] in a civil action pursuant to the
procedures specified in Section 2699.3 filed on behalf of himself or herself and other
current or former employees against whom one or more of the alleged violations was
committed." (§ 2699, subd. (g)(1).)
46

agent of state labor law enforcement agencies, representing the same legal right and
interest as those agencies, in a proceeding that is designed to protect the public, not to
benefit private parties." (Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 1756, AFL-CIO v. Superior
Court (2009) 46 Cal.4th 993, 1003.)
In the seventh cause of action of the complaint, Donohue pleaded that she
complied with PAGA's administrative prefiling requirements (see § 2699.3, subd. (a))
and alleged that, under PAGA, she was an aggrieved employee asserting a claim against
AMN based on violations of specified Labor Code sections and Industrial Welfare
Commission wage orders dealing with: straight time; overtime; meal periods; rest
periods; wage statements; and amount of compensation owed upon termination of
employment (based on proof of the other alleged violations). The trial court granted
AMN's motion for summary adjudication of Donohue's PAGA cause of action,
because—in the language of the issue to be summarily adjudicated—each of the PAGA
claims "is derivative of [Donohue's] other claims under the California Labor Code, which
also fail[.]" The trial court did not err.
On appeal, Donohue argues otherwise, contending that, unlike a class action
plaintiff who must show a common policy or practice that results in Labor Code (or
related) violations, a PAGA plaintiff need only prove the existence of a violation. In
support, Donohue relies on a language from Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th
531 (Williams) that, in a PAGA action, "recovery on behalf of the state and aggrieved
employees may be had for each violation, whether pursuant to a uniform policy or not."
47
(Williams, at p. 559.) Even if we accept Donohue's authority,42 Donohue did not
establish that she suffered harm as a result of AMN's violation of the Labor Code.
Stated differently, Donohue did not establish that she was an aggrieved
employee—a prerequisite to asserting a PAGA claim (§ 2699, subds. (a), (g)(1))—
because she did not establish that "one or more of the alleged [Labor Code] violations
was committed" against her (§ 2699, subd. (c)). The parties and the trial court discussed
this issue in terms of analyzing whether Donohue's PAGA claims were "derivative" of
her substantive claims for Labor Code violations.
In its separate statement in support of its motion to summarily adjudicate Issue
No. 7, AMN proffered the following undisputed material fact: "All claims for PAGA
penalties that [Donohue] has brought in this lawsuit are derivative of her other causes of
action for violations of the Labor Code." As supporting evidence, AMN relied on copies
of Donohue's administrative prefiling letters and certain allegations in her complaint in
which Donohue expressly contended that her PAGA claims were entirely derivative of
42 The procedural posture in Williams makes the case inapplicable to the present
appeal. Williams was a discovery dispute, where the principal issue was whether the
PAGA plaintiff had to show that he had been subject to Labor Code violations prior to
obtaining discovery from the defendant employer regarding contact information for other
California employees. (Williams, supra, 3 Cal.5th at pp. 538, 559.) The court concluded
that the identities of the employer's other California employees were discoverable without
first requiring that the PAGA plaintiff establish that he had been subject to Labor Code
violations. (Williams, at p. 558 ["the merits of one's case has never been a threshold
requirement for discovery"].) As applicable to the present appeal—and as we discuss in
the text, post—in dictum the court explained that, in order to recover on the merits as
opposed to merely obtaining discovery, a PAGA plaintiff must establish standing, which
requires a showing the PAGA plaintiff "suffered harm" as a result of the employer's
violation of the Labor Code. (Williams, at p. 559, citing § 2699.)
48

her substantive claims under the Labor Code. Significantly, in her response to AMN's
separate statement, Donohue did not dispute that her claims for PAGA penalties were
derivative of her substantive claims for Labor Code violations.43 Consistently, in her
memorandum of points and authorities in opposition to AMN's motion in the trial court,
Donohue again specifically acknowledged that her PAGA claims were derivative of her
substantive Labor Code claims. Indeed, instead of presenting any independent argument
related to the PAGA cause of action, Donohue merely asked the court to "Please see the
above arguments"—thereby confirming that her PAGA claims were, in fact, derivative of
her other Labor Code claims.
Donohue suggests that the holding in Lopez v. Friant & Associates, LLC (2017) 15
Cal.App.5th 773 (Lopez) saves her PAGA claim (§ 2699) for wage statement violations
(§ 226, subd. (a)).44 More specifically, she argues that, under Lopez, the trial court here
erred in ruling that, because AMN was entitled to judgment as a matter of law on her
individual (class) claims under section 226, AMN was also entitled to judgment as a
43 Actually, Donohue did not include any response to AMN's proposed undisputed
material fact. AMN noted this nonresponse in its reply to Donohue's opposition,
contending that, because "[Donohue] has provided no response to this fact[,] . . . it
therefore remains undisputed." Donohue did not argue otherwise at the hearing (or seek
leave to amend her prior response), and she does not contend otherwise on appeal.
44 Because this is the argument that Donohue attempted to raise in her motion for
reconsideration, which the trial court struck after entry of judgment, Donohue has not
been prejudiced by the trial court's failure to rule on the motion.
49

matter of law on her representative (PAGA) claim under section 2699.45 However, all
Lopez held was that a plaintiff who asserts a representative claim for civil penalties under
PAGA (§ 2699) based on violations of section 226, subdivision (a), need not prove an
individual claim for statutory damages under the Labor Code (§ 226, subd. (e)) based on
the same violations of section 226, subdivision (a). (Lopez, at pp. 784-786.) Although a
representative PAGA claim for penalties (§ 2699) and an individual claim for damages
(§ 226, subd. (e)) both require proof of a violation of the requirements for itemized wage
statements under section 226, subdivision (a), the representative claim requires only
proof that the employer's wage statement violated section 226, subdivision (a), whereas
the individual claim requires proof that the plaintiff suffered an " 'injury' resulting from a
'knowing and intentional' violation of section 226[, subdivision ](a)." (Lopez, at pp. 784,
784-786.)
In Lopez, the defendant employer sought summary judgment on the representative
(PAGA) claim for penalties (§ 2699) based on evidence and argument that the plaintiff
employee could not establish an individual claim for damages (§ 226, subd. (e)) based on
the same alleged section 226, subdivision (a) wage statement violations. (Lopez, supra,
45 In the individual (class) cause of action for damages under section 226,
subdivision (e), Donohue alleged that AMN failed to include in employees' wage
statements "all hours worked" in violation of subdivision (a)(2) and failed to identify "all
applicable regular and overtime rates of pay" in violation of subdivision (a)(9).
In the representative (PAGA) cause of action under section 2699 for penalties
based on section 226 violations, Donohue alleged that AMN failed to include in
employees' wage statements "the accurate total number of overtime hours worked" in
violation of subdivision (a)(2), the "accurate net or gross wages, including overtime
wages, earned" in violation of subdivision (a)(1), and "the name and address of the legal
entity that is the employer" in violation" of subdivision (a)(8).
50

15 Cal.App.5th at pp. 776-777.) In reaching its conclusion otherwise, the Lopez court
stated only that a PAGA representative claim for penalties based on a violation of
subdivision (a) of section 226 is not derivative of an individual claim for damages based
on a violation of subdivision (e) of section 226 because the individual claim requires
proof of a knowing and intentional violation of subdivision (a), whereas the
representative claim does not. (Lopez, at p. 786.) In contrast, here, because Donohue's
individual (class) claims failed on grounds other than the lack of proof of a knowing and
intentional violation of section 226, subdivision (a)—namely, on the basis that Donohue
did not meet her burden of establishing an issue of material fact as to the existence of a
section 226, subdivision (a) violation (see pt. III.D., ante)—Lopez is not controlling.46
In conclusion, based on the record and our rulings on her individual (class) Labor
Code claims, ante, Donohue did not meet her burden of establishing trial court error in
granting summary adjudication in favor of AMN on Donohue's representative (PAGA)
cause of action. Stated differently, in the language from her opening brief on appeal,
Donohue did not meet her burden of establishing an issue of material fact as to whether
46 At oral argument, counsel for Donohue presented argument based on Huff v.
Securitas Security Services USA, Inc. (2018) 23 Cal.App.5th 745 (Huff)—a case that was
decided many months after the filing of her reply brief. We disapprove of counsel
presenting this authority without sufficient time for AMN to respond—despite six months
and three rounds of supplemental briefing after the filing of Huff and before oral
argument. However, since the case does not help Donohue, we will consider it without
requesting supplemental briefing from AMN. In Huff, the appellate court held that an
employee who is affected by at least one Labor Code violation may pursue PAGA
penalties for unrelated Labor Code violations by the same employer. (Huff, at pp. 753-
754.) Here, as we concluded in the text, ante, Donohue has not established the right to
recover for any Labor Code violation; thus, even under Huff, she may not pursue PAGA
penalties for any Labor Code violation(s).
51

she "individually experienced" any particular Labor Code violation. (See Huff, supra, 23
Cal.App.5th at p. 753 [PAGA plaintiff must be "affected by at least one Labor Code
violation"]) In response to AMN's showing—which included Donohue not disputing the
proffered material fact that her representative (PAGA) claims were derivative of her
individual (class) Labor Code claims47—Donohue did not establish either that she
suffered a Labor Code violation or that her PAGA claims were not derivative of her
individual (class) claims.
Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's ruling as to AMN Issue No. 7.
H. The Trial Court Did Not Abuse its Discretion in Sustaining AMN's Evidentiary
Objections to Certain of Donohue's Evidence
In ruling on the cross-motions, the trial court sustained AMN's evidentiary
objections to the declarations of Donohue and Clint S. Engleson, one of Donohue's
attorneys. Donohue contends on appeal that these rulings are erroneous and, on that
basis, she is entitled to a reversal of the judgment. We disagree.
Generally, we review for an abuse of discretion of the trial court's ruling on the
exclusion of evidence in summary judgment proceedings. (Park v. First American Title
Co. (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 1418, 1427.) A trial court abuses its discretion only when, in
47 As we explained at footnote 45, ante: In the individual (class) claim for damages
under section 226, subdivision (e), Donohue alleged violations of subdivisions (a)(2) and
(a)(9) of section 226; whereas in the representative (PAGA) claim for penalties under
section 2699, Donohue alleged violations subdivisions (a)(1), (a)(2), and (a)(8) of
section 226—which includes two alleged violations that were not part of the individual
(class) claim. Donohue does not suggest that the PAGA claim was not derivative of the
class claims because the two sets of claims alleged different violations of section 226,
subdivision (a).
52

its exercise, the ruling is arbitrary or the trial court "exceeds the bounds of reason, all of
the circumstances before it being considered." (Denham, supra, 2 Cal.3d at p. 566.) That
said, in Reid v. Google, Inc. (2010) 50 Cal.4th 512, our Supreme Court expressly left
open the question of whether such evidentiary rulings are reviewed under a de novo or an
abuse of discretion standard. (Id. at p. 535.) The parties disagree as to which standard
we are to apply.
Under either standard, however, an appellant who seeks a reversal based on the
erroneous exclusion of evidence in summary judgment proceedings must establish how
the error resulted in a "miscarriage of justice," often referred to as prejudice. (Cal.
Const., art. VI, § 13;48 Code Civ. Proc., § 475;49 Pool v. City of Oakland (1986) 42
Cal.3d 1051, 1069.) For purposes of this analysis, a "miscarriage of justice" may be
found on appeal " ' "only when the court, 'after an examination of the entire cause,
including the evidence,' is of the 'opinion' that it is reasonably probable that a result more
favorable to the appealing party would have been reached in the absence of the error." ' "
48 "No judgment shall be set aside . . . in any cause, on the ground of . . . the
improper . . . rejection of evidence . . . , unless, after an examination of the entire cause,
including the evidence, the court shall be of the opinion that the error complained of has
resulted in a miscarriage of justice." (Cal. Const., art. VI, § 13, italics added.)
49 "No judgment, decision, or decree shall be reversed or affected by reason of any
error, ruling, instruction, or defect, unless it shall appear from the record that such error,
ruling, instruction, or defect was prejudicial, and also that by reason of such error, ruling,
instruction, or defect, the said party complaining or appealing sustained and suffered
substantial injury, and that a different result would have been probable if such error,
ruling, instruction, or defect had not occurred or existed. There shall be no presumption
that error is prejudicial, or that injury was done if error is shown." (Code Civ. Proc.,
§ 475, italics added.)
53

(Pool, at p. 1069; accord, San Diego Gas & Electric Co. v. Schmidt (2014) 228
Cal.App.4th 1280, 1301-1302.) In this context, "reasonably probable" means "more than
an abstract possibility." (College Hospital Inc. v. Superior Court (1994) 8 Cal.4th 704,
715.) Prejudice is not presumed (Code Civ. Proc., § 475), and the appellant bears the
burden of establishing both error and a miscarriage of justice. (Denham, supra, 2 Cal.3d
at p. 566.)
Without deciding which standard of review applies, we assume that the challenged
evidence should have been admitted.50 As we explain, however, because Donohue did
not meet her burden of establishing prejudice, any error in excluding the evidence is
harmless.
1. Donohue's Testimony
In support of her opposition to AMN's motion directed to meal periods and rest
periods, Donohue testified as follows:
"I understand AMN is arguing that I somehow 'certified' that I received all
meal and rest breaks while working for the company by clicking a box to
that effect when submitting my timecard. This is not the case. To confirm,
I could not submit my timecard—and thus get paid—without clicking this
box. Because I had no choice but to click this box, my doing so does not
'certify' the fact that I received meal and rest breaks. As I have testified
multiple times, I was routinely discouraged from taking meal and rest
breaks while I worked for AMN and was in fact called back to my desk—
over the intercom—on several occasions when attempting to take meal and
rest breaks."
50 Indeed, in our discussions of both the meal period and rest period issues at
parts III.C.1. & III.F., respectively, ante, we considered applicable portions of Donohue's
declaration testimony that the trial court excluded.
54

AMN objected to this testimony on numerous grounds. The trial court excluded the
testimony without stating the basis of its ruling.
On appeal, Donohue contends that this testimony is "relevant," "based on personal
knowledge," and "simply expand[s] on and clarif[ies] what she had meant by her prior
deposition testimony." She then argues that the exclusion of this testimony "was highly
prejudicial, as it created a multitude of triable issues of fact with regard to the meal and
rest period claims." However, by acknowledging that this testimony is cumulative and by
failing to suggest how this testimony supports a specific triable issue of material fact,
Donohue has not met her burden of establishing prejudice.
Accordingly, Donohue is not entitled to relief based on the trial court's exclusion
of Donohue's declaration testimony.
2. Engleson's Testimony
In support of her opposition to AMN's motion, Donohue submitted the declaration
from one of her attorneys, Engleson. In his declaration, Engleson provided substantive
testimony, as well as foundational/authentication testimony related to 16 exhibits. AMN
objected to the declaration and to certain of the exhibits on various grounds, and the trial
court sustained AMN's evidentiary objections on the basis that most of the declaration
was "an improper attorney declaration." The court did not rule on the objections to any
of the exhibits.
On appeal, Donohue does not challenge the ruling that Engleson's declaration was
an improper attorney declaration. She challenges only that portion of the court's ruling
that sustained AMN's objections to the 16 exhibits. However, Donohue does not attempt
55
to explain (let alone succeed in explaining) how she was prejudiced by the exclusion of
any particular exhibit.
Accordingly, Donohue is not entitled to relief based on the trial court's ruling
sustaining AMN's objection to Engleson's declaration.
I. Donohue Did Not Retain Her Individual Claims
In her final argument, without a record reference, Donohue contends that, because
"AMN's notice of summary judgment motion only seeks to adjudicate the certified class
action claims, . . . it was error for the trial court to adjudicate Ms. Donohue's individual
claims for meal break, rest break, unpaid compensation and wage statement violations."
(Original italics and bolding) We emphasize "without a record reference," because the
record discloses that AMN gave notice of and moved for "summary judgment or, in the
alternative, summary adjudication, in its favor and against the certified class and named
plaintiff Kennedy Donohue in her individual capacity, on Plaintiffs' Second Amended
Complaint, and as to each cause of action therein." (Italics added.)
Accordingly, Donohue's argument that AMN's motion did not seek to adjudicate
her individual claims is frivolous, and we reject it.

Outcome: The judgment is affirmed. AMN is entitled to its costs on appeal. (Cal. Rules of
Court, rule 8.278(a)(2).)

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: