Castro v. Walmart Inc. ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 MARTHA CASTRO, individually No. 2:20-cv-00928-JAM-KJN and on behalf of all those 9 similarly situated, 10 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS 11 v. 12 WAL-MART, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 13 through 100, inclusive, 14 Defendants. 15 16 Plaintiff Martha Castro (“Plaintiff”) filed this putative 17 class action against her former employer, Defendant Walmart, Inc. 18 (“Walmart” or “Defendants”), for violating California’s labor 19 laws. First Amended Compl. (“FAC”), ECF No. 8. Defendant now 20 moves to dismiss Plaintiff’s failure to provide accurate wage 21 statements claim (California Labor Code § 226). Mot. to Dismiss 22 (“Mot.”), ECF No. 9. Plaintiff opposes this motion. Opp’n, ECF 23 No. 12. 24 For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS 25 Defendants’ motion.1 26 27 1 This motion was determined to be suitable for decision without oral argument. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(g). The hearing was 28 scheduled for July 28, 2020. 1 I. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 2 Plaintiff Martha Castro worked as a greeter at Defendant’s 3 Walmart store in Roseville, California for thirteen years. FAC 4 ¶ 13. Plaintiff alleges Walmart committed various California 5 Labor Code violations, including: (1) failing to pay all wages 6 for time worked; (2) failing to pay all wages owed at 7 termination; (3) failing to provide Plaintiff and putative class 8 with accurate itemized wage statements. FAC ¶¶ 21-53. 9 Plaintiff filed her Complaint in Placer County Superior 10 Court on March 24, 2020. Notice of Removal, ECF No. 1, ¶ 1. 11 Walmart removed the case to federal court on May 6, 2020, 12 alleging jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 13 (“CAFA”). Id. ¶ 2; 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d). Plaintiff subsequently 14 filed an amended complaint. See FAC. Walmart moves to only 15 dismiss the claim for failure to provide accurate itemized wage 16 statements. 17 II. OPINION 18 A. Legal Standard 19 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires “a short 20 and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is 21 entitled to relief.” Courts must dismiss a suit if the 22 plaintiff fails to “state a claim upon which relief can be 23 granted.” Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 12(b)(6). To defeat a Rule 24 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, a plaintiff must “plead enough facts 25 to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell 26 Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). This 27 plausibility standard requires “factual content that allows the 28 court to draw a reasonable inference that the defendant is 1 liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 2 662, 678 (2009). “At this stage, the Court “must accept as true 3 all of the allegations contained in a complaint.” Id. But it 4 need not “accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual 5 allegation.” Id. 6 B. Analysis 7 1. Failure to Furnish Accurate Itemized Wage Statements 8 California Labor Code Section 226 itemizes nine categories 9 of information that must be included in a wage statement. See 10 Cal. Lab. Code § 226. If an employee suffers injury by an 11 employer’s knowing and intentional failure to provide such 12 information, she is entitled to recover damages as prescribed in 13 the statute and reasonable attorney’s fees. Id. 14 Plaintiff alleges that Defendants: 15 [F]ailed to include accurate hours and gross wages earned due to Defendants’ systematic policies of failing to 16 compensate Plaintiff and members of the Plaintiff Class for all time worked, including time spent “off the clock.” 17 18 FAC ¶ 85. Defendants argue this claim is “completely derivative 19 of her off-the-clock claim” and therefore must be dismissed. 20 Reply at 2. The Court agrees. 21 As Walmart points out, this Court decided this exact issue 22 in Krauss v. Wal-Mart, Inc., No. 19-cv-00838, 2019 WL 6170770l, 23 at *4 (E.D. Cal, Nov. 20, 2019). Reply, ECF No. 13, at 2. In 24 Krauss, the plaintiff brought a Section 226 claim alleging she 25 and other putative class members were required to work off the 26 clock and through meal breaks. Id. at *4. In its analysis, the 27 Court relied on Maldonado v. Epsilon Plastics, which held that 28 an inaccurate wage claim that “boils down to the proposition 1 that any failure to pay overtime . . . also generates a wage 2 statement injury,” is an impermissible double recovery. 22 Cal. 3 App. 5th 1308, 1336 (2018). Maldonado clarified that “only the 4 absence of hours worked will give rise to an inference of [Wage 5 Statement] injury,” since the absence of wages earned will be 6 remedied by a wage and hour claim. Id. at 1337. Finding that 7 plaintiff’s claim boiled down to the proposition that failure to 8 pay for time worked off-the-clock also violated wage statement 9 laws, this Court dismissed plaintiff’s Section 226 claim in 10 Krauss. 2019 WL 6170770l, at *4. 11 Plaintiff’s claim here, like the claim in Krauss, is 12 entirely derivative of her off-the-clock claim and impermissibly 13 seeks a double recovery. Plaintiff argues Walmart violated 14 accurate wage statement law by failing to compensate her and 15 putative class members for time spent “off the clock.” FAC 16 ¶ 85. Plaintiff contends her claim is based on the absence of 17 “hours worked,” and, therefore, entitles her to recovery under 18 Section 226. Opp’n at 5. The Court disagrees. This claim is 19 based on “wages earned” since her allegation for failure to 20 compensate off-the-clock work will be remedied by her wage and 21 hour claim. Maldonado, 22 Cal. App. 5th at 1337. This 22 interpretation is supported by the purpose of Section 226, which 23 is “to document the paid wages to ensure the employee is fully 24 informed regarding the calculation of those wages.” Id. 25 (quoting Soto v. Motel 6 Operating, L.P. 4 Cal. App. 5th 385, 26 392 (2016)). Here, it is undisputed that the wage statements 27 accurately reflected the calculation of the wages that were 28 actually paid to Plaintiff. And although those wages do not □□□ GU UN COUVEAINTTING RYUUUPTIOCTIL tw PIR TOYO YU 1 accurately reflect the “wages earned,” Plaintiff cannot also 2 recover for that violation under Section 226. The Court further 3 finds that any attempt to amend this claim would be futile and 4 therefore Plaintiff’s itemized wage statement claim is DISMISSED 5 WITH PREJUDICE. 6 Til. ORDER 7 For the reasons set forth above, the Court GRANTS 8 Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Third Cause of Action 9 WITH PREJUDICE. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 Dated: August 17, 2020 12 kA 13 teiren staves odermacr 7008 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28