Workforce Defense League v. Clayco, Inc. ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 WORKFORCE DEFENSE LEAGUE, No. 2:22-cv-00503-JAM-DB 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ 12 CLAYCO, INC.; and UNITED MOTION TO STRIKE CONTRACTOR SERVICES, LLC 13 Defendants. 14 15 Clayco, Inc and United Contractor Services, LLC 16 (“Defendants”) petition the Court to strike portions of Workforce 17 Defense League’s (“Plaintiff”) Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) 18 as immaterial, namely Plaintiff’s allegations relating to: 19 (1) meal and rest break violations and (2) relief under statutes 20 other than § 218.7. See Mot. to Strike (“Mot.”), ECF No. 26. 21 Plaintiff opposes the motion, in part, noting the Court’s prior 22 order relating to this case. See Opp’n, ECF No. 27, at 1. 23 Defendants replied. See Reply, ECF No. 28. 24 For the reasons set forth below, this Court GRANTS in part 25 and DENIES in part 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 scheduled 28 for December 6, 2023. 1 I. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 2 As the facts are already known to the parties, the Court 3 repeats them only as necessary to explain its decision. 4 Plaintiff is a labor management cooperation committee that 5 has brought this action on behalf of Claimants against 6 Defendants, alleging that Defendants did not pay Claimants for 7 all hours worked, overtime wages, or premiums for missed rest 8 breaks in the construction of an Amazon Fulfillment Center in 9 Tracy, California. See generally SAC, ECF No. 21. Plaintiff 10 alleges that Claimants worked on the project from May 2021 11 through June 2022; Claimants worked Monday through Saturday, and 12 occasionally Sunday, for at least fifty-six hours per week. Id. 13 ¶¶ 14-15, 18-19. Plaintiff claims that Claimants were promised 14 an hourly pay rate of $25 to $27 but were not paid fully for 15 either their regular or overtime hours. Id. ¶ 17. As for rest 16 and meal breaks, Plaintiff alleges that Claimants were never 17 given required rest breaks and only received a single meal break 18 Monday through Thursday; Claimants also did not receive monetary 19 premiums for the missed breaks. Id. ¶¶ 18-19. 20 II. OPINION 21 A. Legal Standard 22 In considering a motion to strike, FRCP 12(f) provides in 23 pertinent part that “the Court may order stricken from any 24 pleading any insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, 25 impertinent, or scandalous matter . . . Motions to strike are 26 disfavored and infrequently granted. A motion to strike should 27 not be granted unless it is clear that the matter to be stricken 28 could have no possible bearing on the subject matter of the 1 litigation.” Bassett v. Ruggles et al., 2009 WL 2982895 at *24 2 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 14, 2009) (internal citations omitted). 3 B. Analysis 4 1. Meal and Rest Break Violations 5 Defendants contend that Plaintiff’s allegations regarding 6 meal and rest break violations must be stricken because (1) Labor 7 Code § 218.7 only permits claims for unpaid wages, not for the 8 nonprovision of breaks and (2) Plaintiffs have failed to satisfy 9 the pleading requirements under Landers v. Quality 10 Communications, Inc., 771 F.3d 638 (9th Cir. 2014). Mot. at 4-5, 11 11-13. The Court disagrees with Defendants’ first argument for 12 the reasons set forth below and dismisses their second argument 13 because it is outside of the scope of their motion to strike. As 14 for the first argument, the California Supreme Court in Naranjo 15 v. Spectrum Security Services Inc. held that “premium pay is 16 fairly understood as falling within the Labor Code's general 17 definition of wages.” 509 P.3d 956, 970 (Cal. 2022). Defendants 18 attempt to avoid this result, relying on Kirby v. Immoos Fire 19 Prot., Inc., 274 P.3d 1160 (Cal. 2012). Mot. at 9-11. In Kirby, 20 the California Supreme Court considered whether an action under 21 § 226.7 for violation of meal and rest provisions was an “action 22 brought for the nonpayment of wages” for purposes of fee-shifting 23 under Labor Code § 218.5. Id. at 1160. The Court concluded that 24 “a section 226.7 action is brought for the nonprovision of meal 25 and rest periods, not for the ‘nonpayment of wages.’” Id. But 26 here, unlike the provision at issue in Kirby, § 218.7(b)(3) is 27 not limited to actions for the nonpayment of wages. Rather 28 § 218.7 allows Plaintiff to bring a claim for any unpaid wages, eee eee II I OE IE 1 which, as Naranjo makes clear, includes premiums for missed meal 2 and rest periods. Naranjo, 509 P.3d at 970. Defendants 3 reference to Coleman v. Jenny Craig, Inc., 649 F. App’x 387 (9th 4 Cir. 2016) is immaterial because rest break premiums, the remedy 5 for a § 226.7 violation, are considered unpaid wages. See Order, 6 ECF No. 20, at 7. Defendants have failed to show that their 7 motion to strike under FRCP 12(f) is warranted as a matter of 8 law. The Court denies the motion and declines to strike 9 Plaintiff’s references to the nonprovision of meal and rest 10 breaks as they are material to Plaintiff’s claim for unpaid 11 wages. 12 2, Other Labor Code Sections 13 The Court grants Defendants’ motion to strike the 14 allegations related to Labor Code §§ 218.5, 218.6 and 1194, 15 considering Plaintiff’s agreement with Defendants that these 16 sections are immaterial because of § 218.7’s scope. Opp’n at 7- 17 8. Specifically, the Court grants Defendants’ motion to strike 18 the following allegations: (1) “218.5” and “1194” from paragraph 19 31; (2) *218.5,"% “218.6,” and “1194” from paragraph 32; and 20 (3) their related allegations in the prayer for relief. 21 IIl. ORDER 22 For the reasons set forth above, this Court GRANTS in part 23 and DENIES in part Defendants’ motion. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 Dated: January 26, 2023 26 27 a 7 Yond JOHN A. MENDEZ 28 SENIOR UNITED*STATES DISTRICT JUDGE