Workforce Defense League v. Clayco, Inc. ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 WORKFORCE DEFENSE LEAGUE, No. 2:22-cv-00502-JAM-DB 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS 14 CLAYCO,INC. et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 I. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 18 Workforce Defense League (“Plaintiff”) is a labor management 19 cooperation committee. First Am. Compl. (“FAC”) ¶ 4, ECF No. 9. 20 It brings this action against Clayco, Inc., United Contractor 21 Services, and Custom Drywall & Services, LLC (“Defendants”) 22 alleging carpenters employed to work for them at an Amazon 23 Fulfillment Center project in Sacramento were not paid for all 24 hours worked, overtime wages, or premiums for missed rest breaks. 25 See generally id. Plaintiff brings a single claim, on its own 26 behalf and on behalf of the carpenters, under California Labor 27 Code section 218.7, which allows a labor management cooperation 28 committee to bring an action against a direct contractor or 1 subcontractor for unpaid wages owed to a wage claimant. 2 Defendants now move to dismiss this claim. See Mot. to Dismiss 3 (“Mot.”), ECF No. 10.1 Plaintiff opposed the motion. See Opp’n, 4 ECF No. 14. Defendants replied. See Reply, ECF No. 17. For the 5 reasons set forth below this motion is granted with leave to 6 amend. 7 II. OPINION 8 A. Legal Standard 9 A Rule 12(b)(6) motion challenges the complaint as not 10 alleging sufficient facts to state a claim for relief. Fed. R. 11 Civ. P. 12(b)(6). “To survive a motion to dismiss [under 12 12(b)(6)], a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, 13 accepted as true, to state a claim for relief that is plausible 14 on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) 15 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). While 16 “detailed factual allegations” are unnecessary, the complaint 17 must allege more than “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of 18 a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements.” 19 Id. “In sum, for a complaint to survive a motion to dismiss, 20 the non-conclusory ‘factual content,’ and reasonable inferences 21 from that content, must be plausibly suggestive of a claim 22 entitling the plaintiff to relief.” Moss v. U.S. Secret Serv., 23 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). 24 B. Analysis 25 Plaintiff asserts a single claim for unpaid wages on behalf 26 of the carpenters who worked on the Sacramento-based project 27 1 This motion was determined to be suitable for decision without oral argument. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(g). The hearing was scheduled 28 for August 23, 2022. 1 pursuant to California Labor Code section 218.7, which makes 2 both direct contractors and subcontractors liable for any unpaid 3 wages. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants failed to pay 4 carpenters on the project overtime pay, failed to provide rest 5 breaks or adequate compensation for those missed, and failed to 6 pay twice the state minimum wage, as required because the 7 carpenters had to supply their own tools. FAC ¶¶ 27, 28, 29. 8 Defendants contend Plaintiff has not alleged enough facts to 9 state a plausible claim for relief. Mot. at 5-9. 10 In the context of wage claims, the Ninth Circuit has held 11 that “[a]lthough [. . .] detailed factual allegations regarding 12 the number of overtime hours worked are not required to state a 13 plausible claim, [. . .] conclusory allegations that merely 14 recite the statutory language are [in]adequate.” Landers v. 15 Quality Commc’ns, Inc., 771 F.3d 638, 644 (9th Cir. 2014), as 16 amended, (Jan 26, 2015), cert. denied, 575 U.S. 979 (2015); see 17 also Boyack v. Regis Corp., 812 F. App’x 428 (9th Cir. 2020) 18 (affirming dismissal of California Labor Code claims for unpaid 19 overtime, unpaid minimum wages, and rest break violations for 20 failure to meet the pleading requirements laid out in Landers). 21 A plaintiff “may establish a plausible claim by estimating the 22 length of her average workweek during the applicable period and 23 the average rate at which she was paid, the amount of overtime 24 wages she believes she is owed, or any other facts that will 25 permit the court to find plausibility.” Landers, 771 F.3d at 26 645. At the very least, plaintiffs “should be able to allege 27 facts demonstrating that there was at least one workweek in 28 which they worked in excess of forty hours and were not paid 1 overtime wages.” Id. at 646. 2 The Court agrees with Defendants that Plaintiff’s claim 3 here falls short. Mot. at 5-8. Plaintiff alleges that during 4 the statutory period Wage Claimants “worked more than 8 hours in 5 a day and/or 40 hours in a week without receiving overtime 6 compensation at the rate of one and one-half (1½) times their 7 regular rate”; “Defendants also failed to provide Wage Claimants 8 rest and meal breaks or pay Wage Claimants rest or meal break 9 premiums of one hour of pay at the Wage Claimants’ regular rate 10 of compensation for each workday that a rest or meal period was 11 not provided”; and “Defendants failed to pay Wage Claimants 12 twice the state minimum wage because Defendants required Wage 13 Claimants to bring their own tools.” FAC ¶¶ 28-30. While 14 Plaintiff alleges some factual details, such as the length of 15 the average workweek and the hourly rate of pay, see id. ¶¶ 13, 16 14, missing is any detailed allegation about Defendants’ failure 17 to pay overtime. Rather, Plaintiff vaguely asserts that 18 “Defendants typically paid Wage Claimants for some overtime 19 work, but paid it at the incorrect rate and/or did not pay for 20 all overtime hours.” Id. ¶ 16. This is insufficient to state a 21 plausible claim for relief. See Morrelli v. Corizon Health, 22 Inc., No. 18-cv-1395-LJO-SAB, 2018 WL 6201950, at *2 (E.D. Cal. 23 Nov. 28, 2018) (dismissing wage and hour claim when complaint 24 failed to allege facts indicating what overtime compensation was 25 not paid). Plaintiff’s allegation that “Defendants failed to 26 provide Wage Claimants rest breaks or pay Wage Claimants rest 27 break premiums for missed rest breaks” and “Defendants never 28 scheduled the required morning and afternoon rest breaks” is nnn enn nnn en nnn nn nn nnn ne oo nn ED OE 1 likewise insufficient. See Perez v. DNC Parks & Resorts at 2 Sequoia, No. 19-cv-00484-DAD-SAB, 2020 WL 4344911, at *6 (E.D. 3 Cal. July 29, 2020) (“To successfully state a meal or rest break 4 claim, plaintiffs must allege facts specifically identifying an 5 instance where they were deprived of a meal or rest break.”). 6 | Accordingly, Plaintiff’s claim is dismissed without prejudice. 7 See Leadsinger, Inc. v. BMG Music Pub., 512 F.3d 522, 532 (9th 8 Cir. 2008) (explaining leave to amend should be freely given 9 unless there has been undue delay, bad faith, repeated failure 10 to cure deficiencies, it would cause undue prejudice to the 11 opposing counsel or would be futile).* Because the Court finds 12 dismissal warranted on these grounds it does not reach the 13 parties other arguments. See Mot. at 8-15; Opp’n at 6-15. 14 Til. ORDER 15 For the reasons set forth above, the Court GRANTS WITHOUT 16 | PREJUDICE Defendants’ motion to dismiss. If Plaintiff elects to 17 amend its complaint, it should file its Second Amended Complaint 18 | within twenty days (20) of this Order. Defendants’ responsive 19 | pleadings are due within twenty days (20) thereafter. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 Dated: August 19, 2022 22 : cp, JOHN A. MENDEZ 24 SENIOR UNITED*STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 25 26 | 2 Having decided the motion on these grounds, the Court denies as moot Defendants’ and Plaintiff’s requests for judicial notice. 27 | See Sikhs for Justice “SFJ”, Inc. v. Facebook, Inc., 144 F.Supp.3d 1088, 1091 n.1 (denying as moot request for judicial 28 | notice when the Court did not rely on the documents).