Berethia L Willis, et al. v. Sonora Quest Laboratories, et al.

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: December 29, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-04239
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Berethia L Willis, et al., No. CV-25-04239-PHX-KML

10 Plaintiffs, ORDER

11 v.

12 Sonora Quest Laboratories, et al.,

13 Defendants. 14 15 Plaintiffs Berethia L. Willis and Harrison Willis filed this suit in state court alleging 16 a variety of claims connected to Berethia’s former employment with defendant Sonora 17 Quest Laboratories. (Doc. 1-1 at 6.) The complaint alleges Berethia worked for Sonora 18 Quest for “around 10 years without any pay for all hours worked over her regular eight 19 hour shift.” (Doc. 1-1 at 7.) Berethia allegedly was required to work “without breaks per 20 day[,] or time to eat lunch every day.” (Doc. 1-1 at 7.) Berethia worked for Sonora Quest 21 “up until the pandemic started, roughly in 2019 or 2020,” so the complaint admits it has 22 been “around six years” since Berethia left her employment. (Doc. 1-1 at 9.) The complaint 23 alleges claims under federal and Arizona law regarding unpaid wages and a claim under 24 18 U.S.C. § 1589 for “force[d] labor.” (Doc. 1-1 at 7.) Sonora Quest removed the case to 25 federal court and filed a motion to dismiss on November 19, 2025. 26 The motion to dismiss argues Berethia’s federal and state claims involving unpaid 27 wages are untimely and, even if timely, neither federal nor Arizona law “requires 28 employers to provide meal or rest breaks.” (Doc. 6 at 1.) The motion also argues the 1 complaint does not “allege the type of egregious facts supporting a claim under the 2 Trafficking Victims Protection Act [TVPRA1], 18 U.S.C. § 1589.” (Doc. 6 at 1.) Plaintiffs’ 3 opposition to the motion to dismiss was due December 3, 2025, but no opposition was 4 filed. On December 9, 2025, Sonora Quest filed a “Motion for Summary Ruling” 5 requesting the court summarily grant its motion to dismiss. (Doc. 7.) The court denied the 6 Motion for Ruling and ordered plaintiffs to file their opposition to the motion to dismiss 7 no later than December 17, 2025. (Doc. 8.) Plaintiffs did not file a response. 8 Local Rule 7.2(i) allows the court to summarily grant a motion when a party fails to 9 file an opposition. Based on that rule, the motion to dismiss is granted. But even on the 10 merits, the motion would be granted. Berethia stopped working for Sonora Quest 11 approximately six years before filing suit and her claims involving unpaid wages must have 12 accrued around the same time. But six years is well outside the one-year limitations period 13 under Arizona law for wage claims, A.R.S. § 12-541(5), and the two- or three-year 14 limitations periods under federal law, 29 U.S.C. § 255(a). 15 As for the TVPRA claim, plaintiffs needed to allege Sonora Quest intended Berethia 16 “to believe that if she [did] not continue to work, she [would] suffer the type of serious 17 harm—physical or nonphysical, including psychological, financial, reputation harm—that 18 would compel someone in her circumstances to continue working to avoid that harm.” 19 United States v. Dann, 652 F.3d 1160, 1169–70 (9th Cir. 2011). This requires “the threat 20 of harm . . . be serious.” Id. Simply requiring Berethia work unpaid overtime or not 21 allowing her to take breaks is not sufficient to support a claim under the TVPRA. See id. 22 (“not all bad employer-employee relationships . . . will constitute forced labor”). 23 The claims for unpaid wages are time-barred and leave to amend would be futile. 24 Reddy v. Litton Indus., Inc., 912 F.2d 291, 297 (9th Cir. 1990) (“the amended complaint 25 may only allege ‘other facts consistent with the challenged pleading’”) (citing Schreiber

26 1 Sonora Quest refers to the applicable federal statute as the “TVPA.” But “[i]n 2003, Congress amended the TVPA by enacting the TVPRA [Trafficking Victims Protection 27 Reauthorization Act], which among other things added a civil remedy provision.” Fleites v. MindGeek S.A.R.L., No. 2:21-CV-04920-WLH-ADS, 2025 WL 2902292, at *9 (C.D. 28 Cal. Sept. 26, 2025). It is the civil remedy at issue in this case, so the court refers to the TVPRA. Distrib. Co. v. Serv-Well Furniture Co., 806 F.2d 1393, 1401 (9th Cir. 1986)). In addition, 2|| there is no indication that Sonora Quest engaged in anything close to the type of behavior 3 || that might support a claim under the TVPRA. Leave to amend that claim would also be 4|| futile. 5 IT IS ORDERED the Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 6) is GRANTED. The Clerk of 6 || Court shall enter judgment in favor of defendants and close this case. 7 Dated this 29th day of December, 2025. 8

10 AA Ata Ve OC ft □□ Honorable Krissa M. Lanham 1] United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-3-