Defendant's Attorney: Not available
Description: San Francisco, California employment law lawyers represented Plaintiff who sued Defendant on wage and hour violation theory.
In this putative class action, Ulloa sues his former employer Securitas alleging numerous wage and hour violations under California law. [See Docket No. 1 (Notice of Removal, “NOR”) Ex. 1 (Compl.).] Plaintiff asserts the following claims in the FAC: 1) failure to provide required meal periods in violation of California Labor Code sections 226.7 and 512; 2) failure to provide required rest periods in violation of California Labor Code sections 226.7 and 512; 3) failure to pay overtime wages in violation of California Labor Code sections 510 and 1194; 4) failure to pay minimum wages in violation of California Labor Code sections 1194 and 1197; 5) failure to pay wages due upon termination in violation of California Labor Code sections 201-203; 6) failure to provide accurate, itemized wage statements in violation of California Labor Code section 226; 7) failure to maintain employment records in violation of California Labor Code section 226; 8) failure to indemnify employees for necessary expenditures in violation of California Labor Code section 2802; 9) unfair and unlawful business practices in violation of California Business & Professions Code section 17200 et seq. (“UCL”); and 10) civil penalties under the California Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (“PAGA”), California Labor Code sections 2698-2699.
Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of “all current and former non-exempt employees of Defendants in the State of California at any time within the period beginning four (4) years prior to the filing of this action and ending at the time this action settles or the class is certified[.]” Compl. ¶ 5.
Plaintiff filed the complaint in state court on February 14, 2023. Defendant filed an answer to the complaint on April 7, 2023. NOR ¶¶ 3, 4, Exs. 1, 2. Defendant removed the action to this court on April 12, 2023. Defendant now moves pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) to dismiss the complaint.
* * *
Defendant first argues that the CBAs that purportedly governed Plaintiff's employment contain grievance and arbitration provisions that cover the wage and hour claims in the complaint, and that Plaintiff is required to arbitrate claims for meal periods, rest breaks, overtime, unpaid wages, and unreimbursed business expenses. Mot. 11-12. Accordingly, it contends, the court must dismiss all claims in the complaint for “failure to exhaust the CBA's internal grievance mechanisms.” Id. at 12. Defendant also asserts that the court should “dismiss or strike Plaintiff's class claims” because “the CBA expressly prohibits Plaintiff from [bringing a civil action] other than on an individual basis.” Id. at 17. As these arguments rely on materials outside the complaint that are not judicially noticeable, the motion is denied on these grounds.
Defendant also argues that the complaint fails to allege sufficient factual allegations to state plausible claims under the California Labor Code (claims one through eight), and that complaint fails to state derivative UCL and PAGA claims (claims nine and ten). Mot. 12-17. It also contends that Plaintiff lacks Article III standing to seek injunctive relief because he has not worked for Defendant since October 2022. Id. at 19 (citing NOR Ex. C). Plaintiff does not oppose the motion on these particular grounds. Instead, he responds that if Defendant had filed a timely motion to dismiss before filing an answer, he “would have amended the complaint as a matter of course, pursuant to Rule 15(a)(1)(B), to include more detailed allegations under federal pleading standards.” Opp'n 23. He requests leave to amend to file an amended complaint. Id. at 23-24. Plaintiff also concedes that as a former employee, he lacks standing to seek injunctive relief, and states that any amended complaint “would remove the request for injunctive relief.” Id. at 24.
Plaintiff's claim stems from his arrest on February 20, 2022. (Doc. 1-3 at 3.) Plaintiff alleged that he was stopped in his vehicle by the Phoenix Police absent any probable cause, and that he did not refuse a breathalyzer, yet Phoenix Police unlawfully seized Plaintiff's blood. (Id.) Plaintiff alleged Fourth Amendment excessive force and unreasonable search and seizure claims, state law false arrest/false imprisonment and
assault and battery claims, and a claim of malicious prosecution. (Id. at 4.) Plaintiff sought monetary damages. (Id. at 5.)
On April 5, 2023, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss seeking to dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint on the grounds that Plaintiff's criminal claims for false arrest, false imprisonment, and assault and battery fail as a matter of law, Plaintiff failed to serve Defendant Gallego with the required notice of claim, Defendant Phoenix Police Department is a non-jural entity, Plaintiff's constitutional claims against Defendant Gallego fail as a matter of law, and Plaintiff fails to state a claim. (Doc. 5.)
On April 7, 2023, the Court issued an Order setting a briefing schedule and notifying Plaintiff that failure to respond to Defendants' Motion may be deemed a consent to the granting of the Motion without further notice. (Doc. 7.)
Plaintiff did not file a response to Defendants' Motion.
Outcome: For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's request for injunctive relief is dismissed with prejudice. Claims one through ten are dismissed with leave to amend. Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint with 14 days of the date of this Order and shall plead his best case.