This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Employment Law
Unfair Competition
Failure to Indemnify all Necessary Business Expenditures

Jessica Potts, an individual, on behalf of herself, the State of California, as a private attorney general, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Sirius XM Radio Inc., Pandora Media LLC, and Does 1 to 50

Published: Jun. 23, 2023 | Result Date: Mar. 8, 2023 | Filing Date: Dec. 8, 2022 |

Case number: 2:21-cv-09755 Summary Judgment –  Defense

Judge

Dolly M. Gee

Court

CD CA


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Daniel B. Swerdlin
(All Bridges Legal PC)


Defendant

Aileen H. Kim
(Jones Day)

Donna Chayanne Saadati-Soto
(Jones Day)

Amanda C. Sommerfeld
(Jones Day)


Facts

Jessica Potts worked as an office manager for Sirius XM Radio and subsidiary Pandora Media LLC's western region. On November 15, 2021, Potts, on behalf of herself, the State of California as private attorney general, and all other similarly situated, filed a class and Private Attorney General Act action against Pandora and Sirius XM Radio. The class included all individuals who are or were employed by defendants in California during the class period. Defendant estimated it employed approximately 1,220 California employees during the relevant time period.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff alleged that defendants failed to reimburse employees for necessary out-of-pocket expenses incurred while performing their job duties, including the cost of internet service, phone hardware, service, related equipment, chairs, work surfaces, work area lighting, and use of utilities. Further, plaintiff contended that defendants failed to provide employees with accurate itemized wage statements since they provided statements that omitted important address information, such as the floor and suite of defendant's mailing address. Finally, plaintiff argued that the practices allowed defendants to gain an unfair advantage over competitors who attempted to comply with applicable wage and hour laws in violation of the California Business and Professions Code.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS: Defendants denied all contentions.

Result

The court granted summary judgment in defendants' favor.


#140974

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390