Barnett v. City of San Jose

N.D. California

Barnett v. City of San Jose

DecidedJuly 21, 2020

Docket3:18-cv-01383

StatusUnknown

This text of Barnett v. City of San Jose (Barnett v. City of San Jose) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Barnett v. City of San Jose, (N.D. Cal. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 DAVID BARNETT et al., Case No. 18-cv-01383-JD

8 Plaintiffs, ORDER RE MOTION TO DISMISS v. 9 Re: Dkt. No. 49 10 CITY OF SAN JOSE, Defendant. 11

12 13 In March 2018, over 300 firefighter employees working for the City of San Jose filed 14 seven related actions1 alleging that San Jose violated the overtime compensation requirement of 15 the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). See 28 U.S.C. § 207; 29 C.F.R. § 553.230. The cases 16 were stayed during an appeal of a summary judgment order against the plaintiffs in a similar 17 action, Wallace v. City of San Jose, 16-cv-4914-HRL. Dkt. No. 36.2 In February 2020, after the 18 order was affirmed, the Court lifted the stay and directed the employees to file a consolidated 19 complaint, Dkt. No. 45, which they did on March 9, 2020, Dkt. No. 46. 20 San Jose asks to dismiss the consolidated complaint under Rule 8 and Rule 12(b)(6) of the 21 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failing to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible FLSA 22 claim. Dkt. No. 49; see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); Bell Atl. Corp. v. 23 Twombly, 550 U.S. 554, 570 (2007). San Jose also says that eight of the plaintiffs from the 24 1 The seven related actions are: Barnett v. City of San Jose, 18-cv-1383-JD; Crivelo v. City of San 25 Jose, 18-cv-1386-JD; Ryan v. City of San Jose, 18-cv-1390-JD; Belton v. City of San Jose, 18- 1393-JD; Escobar v. City of San Jose, 18-cv-1394-JD; Conde v. City of San Jose, 18-cv-1403-JD; 26 and Westcott v. City of San Jose, 18-cv-1406-JD.

27 2 The order concluded that pay records submitted by San Jose refuted the plaintiffs’ FLSA 1 Crivelo action are time-barred. Dkt. No. 49 at 12-13. Their attorney has voluntarily dismissed 2 them from the case, which resolves this issue. Dkt. No. 54. 3 For San Jose’s argument on the pleadings, the consolidated complaint alleges enough facts 4 to state a plausible violation of the FLSA. The FLSA “sets a national minimum wage” and 5 “requires overtime pay of one and a half times an employee’s hourly wage for every hour worked 6 over 40 hours in a week.” Probert v. Family Centered Services of Alaska, Inc., 651 F.3d 1007, 7 1009-10 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing FLSA § 207(a)(1)). It is a remedial statute “‘to be liberally 8 construed to apply to the furthest reaches consistent with Congressional direction.’” Id. at 1010 9 (quoting Dent v. Cox Communications Las Vegas, Inc., 502 F.3d 1141, 1146 (9th Cir. 2007)). 10 A plaintiff alleging an FLSA violation “may establish a plausible claim by estimating the 11 length of her average workweek during the applicable period and the average rate at which she 12 was paid, the amount of overtime wages she believes she is owed, or any other facts that will 13 permit the court to find plausibility.” Landers v. Quality Communications, Inc., 771 F.3d 638, 645 14 (9th Cir. 2014). “[A]t a minimum, a plaintiff asserting a violation of the FLSA overtime 15 provisions must allege that she worked more than forty hours in a given workweek without being 16 compensated for the hours worked in excess of forty during that week.” Id. 17 The consolidated complaint satisfies these straightforward standards. It alleges that San 18 Jose has incorrectly calculated plaintiffs’ overtime compensation, resulting in payment of less than 19 is required under the FLSA. Dkt. No. 46 ¶ 10. For plaintiffs Barnett, Lang, Augustine, and 20 Ochoa, it specifically identifies a work period for each of them, identifies the number of regular 21 and overtime hours worked in that period down to the 0.5-hour mark, and expressly states the 22 number of overtime hours worked without full overtime compensation. Id. ¶¶ 11-14. For the 23 other plaintiffs, the consolidated complaint alleges that each of them worked one or more specific 24 work periods for which they were not paid the full amount of FLSA overtime compensation. Id. 25 ¶ 15. It attaches and incorporates by reference a chart showing for each plaintiff the relevant work 26 period by specific dates, and the overtime amount alleged to be unpaid. Id; Dkt. No. 46-1. 27 Consequently, the consolidated complaint “alleges facts showing that there was a given” work 1 is required to state a plausible claim under the FLSA. Landers, 771 F.3d at 645. 2 San Jose does not meaningfully dispute this conclusion, but says that plaintiffs should have 3 added more facts to explain the “context” of the FLSA violations. Dkt. No. 49 at 10-11. That is 4 not demanded by Rule 8 or Landers. Our circuit expressly declined to impose a requirement that 5 an FLSA plaintiff allege detailed information beyond the key facts of the relevant work period and 6 the hours worked, mainly because those details are typically “in the control of the defendants.” 7 Landers, 771 F.3d at 645. To require more of plaintiffs at the pleading stage would unduly 8 frustrate the broad remedial goals of the FLSA and put plaintiffs into an impossible situation of 9 pleading facts to which they do not have ready access. San Jose also slights the express allegation 10 in the consolidated complaint that the overtime violation was due to taking an unauthorized credit 11 under the FLSA and accompanying regulations. Dkt. No. 46 ¶ 10. The consolidated complaint 12 alleges all of the required elements for an FLSA claim, and gives fair notice to San Jose of the 13 basis of the claims against it. See McDonald v. Kiloo ApS, 385 F. Supp. 3d 1022, 1030 (N.D. Cal. 14 2019) (“The allegations in the complaint must be sufficiently clear and concrete to give the 15 defendant an ‘idea [of] where to begin’ in preparing a response to the complaint.”) (alteration in 16 original) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 565 n.10). Nothing more is required. 17 San Jose also asks to dismiss plaintiffs’ claim for declaratory relief on the grounds that it 18 duplicates the FLSA claims and is just a remedy. Dkt. No. 49 at 11-12; Dkt. No. 51 at 7. Even if 19 that proposition were taken as true for present purposes, it is no bar to this claim. See 28 U.S.C. 20 § 2201(a) (court may declare rights and legal relations “whether or not further relief is or could be 21 sought”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 57 (“The existence of another adequate remedy does not preclude a 22 declaratory judgment that is otherwise appropriate.”). In addition, the claim for declaratory relief 23 appears to implicate the interpretation of a labor agreement, Dkt. No. 46 ¶ 22, and so may “‘serve 24 a useful purpose in clarifying and settling the legal relations in issue.’” Newcal Indus., Inc. v. Ikon 25 Office Solution, 513 F.3d 1038, 1056-57 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting United States v. Washington, 26 759 F.2d 1353, 1357 (9th Cir. 1985)).

27 1 The motion to dismiss is denied.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 DAVID BARNETT et al., Case No. 18-cv-01383-JD

8 Plaintiffs, ORDER RE MOTION TO DISMISS v. 9 Re: Dkt. No. 49 10 CITY OF SAN JOSE, Defendant. 11

12 13 In March 2018, over 300 firefighter employees working for the City of San Jose filed 14 seven related actions1 alleging that San Jose violated the overtime compensation requirement of 15 the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). See 28 U.S.C. § 207; 29 C.F.R. § 553.230. The cases 16 were stayed during an appeal of a summary judgment order against the plaintiffs in a similar 17 action, Wallace v. City of San Jose, 16-cv-4914-HRL. Dkt. No. 36.2 In February 2020, after the 18 order was affirmed, the Court lifted the stay and directed the employees to file a consolidated 19 complaint, Dkt. No. 45, which they did on March 9, 2020, Dkt. No. 46. 20 San Jose asks to dismiss the consolidated complaint under Rule 8 and Rule 12(b)(6) of the 21 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failing to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible FLSA 22 claim. Dkt. No. 49; see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); Bell Atl. Corp. v. 23 Twombly, 550 U.S. 554, 570 (2007). San Jose also says that eight of the plaintiffs from the 24 1 The seven related actions are: Barnett v. City of San Jose, 18-cv-1383-JD; Crivelo v. City of San 25 Jose, 18-cv-1386-JD; Ryan v. City of San Jose, 18-cv-1390-JD; Belton v. City of San Jose, 18- 1393-JD; Escobar v. City of San Jose, 18-cv-1394-JD; Conde v. City of San Jose, 18-cv-1403-JD; 26 and Westcott v. City of San Jose, 18-cv-1406-JD.

27 2 The order concluded that pay records submitted by San Jose refuted the plaintiffs’ FLSA 1 Crivelo action are time-barred. Dkt. No. 49 at 12-13. Their attorney has voluntarily dismissed 2 them from the case, which resolves this issue. Dkt. No. 54. 3 For San Jose’s argument on the pleadings, the consolidated complaint alleges enough facts 4 to state a plausible violation of the FLSA. The FLSA “sets a national minimum wage” and 5 “requires overtime pay of one and a half times an employee’s hourly wage for every hour worked 6 over 40 hours in a week.” Probert v. Family Centered Services of Alaska, Inc., 651 F.3d 1007, 7 1009-10 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing FLSA § 207(a)(1)). It is a remedial statute “‘to be liberally 8 construed to apply to the furthest reaches consistent with Congressional direction.’” Id. at 1010 9 (quoting Dent v. Cox Communications Las Vegas, Inc., 502 F.3d 1141, 1146 (9th Cir. 2007)). 10 A plaintiff alleging an FLSA violation “may establish a plausible claim by estimating the 11 length of her average workweek during the applicable period and the average rate at which she 12 was paid, the amount of overtime wages she believes she is owed, or any other facts that will 13 permit the court to find plausibility.” Landers v. Quality Communications, Inc., 771 F.3d 638, 645 14 (9th Cir. 2014). “[A]t a minimum, a plaintiff asserting a violation of the FLSA overtime 15 provisions must allege that she worked more than forty hours in a given workweek without being 16 compensated for the hours worked in excess of forty during that week.” Id. 17 The consolidated complaint satisfies these straightforward standards. It alleges that San 18 Jose has incorrectly calculated plaintiffs’ overtime compensation, resulting in payment of less than 19 is required under the FLSA. Dkt. No. 46 ¶ 10. For plaintiffs Barnett, Lang, Augustine, and 20 Ochoa, it specifically identifies a work period for each of them, identifies the number of regular 21 and overtime hours worked in that period down to the 0.5-hour mark, and expressly states the 22 number of overtime hours worked without full overtime compensation. Id. ¶¶ 11-14. For the 23 other plaintiffs, the consolidated complaint alleges that each of them worked one or more specific 24 work periods for which they were not paid the full amount of FLSA overtime compensation. Id. 25 ¶ 15. It attaches and incorporates by reference a chart showing for each plaintiff the relevant work 26 period by specific dates, and the overtime amount alleged to be unpaid. Id; Dkt. No. 46-1. 27 Consequently, the consolidated complaint “alleges facts showing that there was a given” work 1 is required to state a plausible claim under the FLSA. Landers, 771 F.3d at 645. 2 San Jose does not meaningfully dispute this conclusion, but says that plaintiffs should have 3 added more facts to explain the “context” of the FLSA violations. Dkt. No. 49 at 10-11. That is 4 not demanded by Rule 8 or Landers. Our circuit expressly declined to impose a requirement that 5 an FLSA plaintiff allege detailed information beyond the key facts of the relevant work period and 6 the hours worked, mainly because those details are typically “in the control of the defendants.” 7 Landers, 771 F.3d at 645. To require more of plaintiffs at the pleading stage would unduly 8 frustrate the broad remedial goals of the FLSA and put plaintiffs into an impossible situation of 9 pleading facts to which they do not have ready access. San Jose also slights the express allegation 10 in the consolidated complaint that the overtime violation was due to taking an unauthorized credit 11 under the FLSA and accompanying regulations. Dkt. No. 46 ¶ 10. The consolidated complaint 12 alleges all of the required elements for an FLSA claim, and gives fair notice to San Jose of the 13 basis of the claims against it. See McDonald v. Kiloo ApS, 385 F. Supp. 3d 1022, 1030 (N.D. Cal. 14 2019) (“The allegations in the complaint must be sufficiently clear and concrete to give the 15 defendant an ‘idea [of] where to begin’ in preparing a response to the complaint.”) (alteration in 16 original) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 565 n.10). Nothing more is required. 17 San Jose also asks to dismiss plaintiffs’ claim for declaratory relief on the grounds that it 18 duplicates the FLSA claims and is just a remedy. Dkt. No. 49 at 11-12; Dkt. No. 51 at 7. Even if 19 that proposition were taken as true for present purposes, it is no bar to this claim. See 28 U.S.C. 20 § 2201(a) (court may declare rights and legal relations “whether or not further relief is or could be 21 sought”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 57 (“The existence of another adequate remedy does not preclude a 22 declaratory judgment that is otherwise appropriate.”). In addition, the claim for declaratory relief 23 appears to implicate the interpretation of a labor agreement, Dkt. No. 46 ¶ 22, and so may “‘serve 24 a useful purpose in clarifying and settling the legal relations in issue.’” Newcal Indus., Inc. v. Ikon 25 Office Solution, 513 F.3d 1038, 1056-57 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting United States v. Washington, 26 759 F.2d 1353, 1357 (9th Cir. 1985)).

27 1 The motion to dismiss is denied. San Jose is directed to file an answer to the consolidated 2 || complaint by August 11, 2020. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 Dated: July 21, 2020 5 6 4 JAMES MPONATO United tates District Judge 8 9 10 11 a 12

13 14

15 16

= 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Barnett v. City of San Jose, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barnett-v-city-of-san-jose-cand-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack