Anderson v. Starbucks Corporation ( 2022 )

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 4 ELIZABETH ANDERSON, et al., Case No. 20-cv-01178-JD individually and on behalf of all others 5 similarly situated, ORDER RE MOTION TO DISMISS Plaintiffs, 6 Re: Dkt. No. 48 v. 7 8 STARBUCKS CORPORATION, Defendant. 9 10 This order resolves defendant Starbucks Corporation’s motion to dismiss. Dkt. No. 48. 11 The parties’ familiarity with the record is assumed. 12 1. Limitations and Relation Back 13 Dismissal on timeliness grounds is denied.1 The claims in the SAC relate back to the 14 original complaint, Dkt. No. 1-2, which was filed in the Alameda County Superior Court on June 15 27, 2019. “An amendment to a pleading relates back to the date of the original pleading” when the 16 amendment asserts a claim that “arose out of the conduct, transaction, or occurrence set out -- or 17 attempted to be set out -- in the original pleading.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(c). The “relation back 18 doctrine is to be liberally applied,” because the purpose of Rule 15(c) “is to provide maximum 19 opportunity for each claim to be decided on its merits rather than on procedural technicalities.” 20 ASARCO, LLC v. Union Pac. R. Co., 765 F.3d 999, 1005 (9th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation and 21 citation omitted). A “plaintiff need only plead the general conduct, transaction, or occurrence to 22 preserve its claims against a defendant. The exact contours of those claims -- the facts that will 23 ultimately be alleged and the final scope of relief that will be sought -- can and should be sorted 24 out through later discovery and amendments to the pleadings.” Id. at 1006. 25 The allegations and claims in the SAC are well within and related to the original 26 complaint. Starbucks has not shown otherwise, and the cases it relies upon are distinguishable on 27 1 the facts. See, e.g., Williams v. Boeing Co., 517 F.3d 1120, 1133 (9th Cir. 2008) (compensation 2 || discrimination claim did not relate back to promotion discrimination claim because it was a “new 3 || legal theory depending on different facts, not a new legal theory depending on the same facts.”). 4 || The Court declines to take up at the pleadings motion stage Starbucks’ suggestion that some of the 5 || named plaintiffs’ claims may be outside the applicable statutes of limitations. See Smith v. 6 Fidelity Workplace Servs. LLC, Case No. 21-cv-03941 JD, 2022 WL 612665, at * 2 (N.D. Cal., 7 March 1, 2022). Starbucks may renew the request on summary judgment as warranted by the 8 || record. 9 2. Duplicative Recovery 10 Starbucks’ concerns about a duplicative recovery with respect to the wage statement and 11 unpaid wages claims, Dkt. No. 48 at 11-12, is also denied as premature. Plaintiffs may plead 12 alternative theories of liability under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(d)(2). In any event, the 5 13 Court will address the measure of recovery as warranted by developments in the case, and an 14 || impermissible double recovery will not be permitted. 3 15 3. PAGA a 16 Starbucks says that several named plaintiffs did not allege compliance with PAGA’s 3 17 administrative exhaustion requirements. See Cal. Lab. Code § 2699.3(a). Plaintiffs effectively 18 conceded the issue by failing to address it in their opposition brief. Consequently, plaintiffs Luke 19 Adelman, Elizabeth Anderson, Ellesse Anderson, Sherri Bradley, Amanda Brekke, Jacqueline 20 Foster, Omar Garland, Hannah Rothschild, Jordone Shane-Sanchez, and Kevin Steinbeck may not 21 maintain a PAGA claim. 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 || Dated: March 21, 2022 24 25 6 JAMES ATO. United fftates District Judge 27 28