LOS ANGELES—A Los Angeles Superior Court judge has denied plaintiffs’ request to grant class action status for defendants in a pivotal lawsuit centering on timely payment to "motion picture" workers in California. This means that the entire universe of production companies spanning TV, commercials and music videos cannot be grouped into a class action initiative and be tried for alleged violations in the case pitting crew member Bill Greenberg against a number of production house and payroll firm defendants. (Greenberg et al vs. EP Management Services Inc., et al).
While last month’s ruling by Judge Carl West on class action is favorable to the production company community, the litigation remains a long way from being resolved. For example, word is that some 30 production houses—including several major commercial companies—have been individually named and recently added as defendants in the case.
Furthermore, a ruling is yet to be made on class action status for plaintiffs, meaning that potentially all workers, who allegedly had not been paid in a timely fashion dating back several years, could become party to the lawsuit. A Superior Court hearing on that class action request is slated for April 2003.
As earlier reported in SHOOT, the litigation centers on a provision in the California State Labor Code requiring that "motion picture" workers be paid no later than 24 hours after being discharged from a job. However in 1998, an amendment to that Labor Code was enacted that enabled employers (production houses and/or payroll companies) to, without penalty, pay crew members by the next regularly scheduled pay day. This amendment was written and passed by state legislators and signed into law by then Gov. Pete Wilson (R-Calif.).
Lobbying for the amendment were the Association of Independent Commercial Producers (AICP), the Alliance of Motion Picture & Television Producers and the Motion Picture Association of America (SHOOT, 5/22/98, p. 1). They cited long-established industry hiring practices whereby freelance crew members know up front that they will work for set, finite periods of time that end with the wrapping of the project. At that point, crew members are free to be hired again for another assignment. Their being discharged from a job upon completion doesn’t mean they are being terminated permanently or precluded again from working for the same production company.
The industry also successfully argued at that time that paying crew members within 24 hours can be a difficult proposition logistically when shooting in a remote location or when an independent payroll services company needs reasonable time for wage-related computations.
However, in recent years, four lawsuits—including the aforementioned case now bidding for class action status relative to plaintiffs—have been filed in Los Angeles Superior Court on behalf of a number of crew members. The litigation has individually named assorted production companies, the major TV/feature studios and payroll companies as defendants.
The litigation contends that timely payment as called for under California’s State Labor Code had not been made to the plaintiffs, who therefore are entitled to recompense per state regulations (SHOOT, 2/22, p. 1). Potentially that recompense would dwarf the original amount owed, with the day rate multiplying to as much as 30 days of pay per worker. Some of the claims date back to October ’96 —nearly two years before the amendment took effect. The number of years that the statute of limitations allows plaintiffs to go back to remains a bone of contention in this case. Plaintiff’s legal counsel based its claims covering ’96 on a four-year statute of limitations (counting back from the original lawsuit filing in October ’00).
"Motion pictUre"
Furthermore, the plaintiffs claim regarding spots is that neither the State Labor Code’s "motion picture" provision nor the ’98 amendment apply to TV programs, commercials and music videos. The provision and the amendment, according to plaintiffs, only cover theatrical features per a narrow definition of the term "motion picture." Therefore, plaintiffs contend that commercial, music video and TV program crew people must be paid immediately once a job is completed, in order to be in compliance with California law.
In sharp contrast, defendants’ legal counsel asserts that the State Labor Code has always deemed TV commercials as part of the motion picture business and therefore an amendment to that code would clearly cover the spotmaking industry. Additionally, defendants point out that the AICP was involved in helping to bring the amendment about, further underscoring that commercials were understood from the outset to be a part of the ’98 measure.
Judge West’s denial of class action status for defendants was not based on issues related to the State Labor Code "motion picture" provision and the amendment’s applicability—or the lack thereof—to TV, commercials and music videos.
Instead the judge’s ruling was that plaintiffs failed to establish any of the requirements for certification of a defendant class. These include whether or not the class is ascertainable, if common questions of law and fact predominate relative to this class, typicality in the interest of the prospective defendants, and if a class-action case indeed represents the most appropriate course of action leading to resolution for the plaintiffs.
On the latter score, Judge West ruled that plaintiffs did not adequately prove that class action treatment of plaintiff claims would be superior to individual lawsuits, proceedings offered by the State Labor Code for resolution of disputes, or provisions available to the plaintiffs under collective bargaining agreements that cover many industry workers.
Until a decision is rendered on class-action status for plaintiffs next April, Los Angeles Superior Court proceedings won’t delve into substantive issues of merit brought up by the lawsuit, including the proper definition of the term "motion picture" in the State Labor Code and in the ’98 amendment.
