Hill v. Pacific Maritime Association

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: February 6, 2025
• Docket: 3:24-cv-00336
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 PAMELA HILL, et al., Case No. 24-cv-00336-JSC

8 Plaintiffs, ORDER RE DEFENDANTS’ MOTION 9 v. TO DISMISS AND STRIKE PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED 10 PACIFIC MARITIME ASSOCIATION, et COMPLAINT al., 11 Re: Dkt. No. 76 Defendants.

12 13 Plaintiffs allege Defendants failed to provide them sick pay and leave and retaliated against 14 a subset of them in violation of California state and municipal laws. (Dkt. No. 88.)1 Certain 15 Defendants move to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil 16 Procedure 12(b)(6) and move to strike portions of the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil 17 Procedure 12(f). (Dkt. No. 76.) Having carefully reviewed the parties’ briefing and with the 18 benefit of oral argument on February 6, 2025, the Court GRANTS the motion to dismiss and 19 DENIES the motion to strike. 20 BACKGROUND 21 I. Complaint Allegations 22 Plaintiffs are 16 current and former watchmen, longshore workers, and clerks who work or 23 worked at “Ports in the State of California.” (Dkt. No. 88 ¶¶ 6-21, 22.) Defendants are 24 “employers, joint and/or co-employers of Plaintiffs and about 15,000 to 20,000 (and possibly 25 more) other workers at Ports” in California who “are in the business of shipping, stevedoring and 26 operating marine terminals.” (Id. ¶ 22, 23.) 27 1 Defendant Pacific Maritime Association (“PMA”) “is comprised of 70 member 2 companies” and is “operated and controlled by [the other named] Defendants”2 whose executives 3 are on “its Board of Directors.” (Id. ¶ 23.) PMA “handles ‘integrated labor relations, human 4 resources and administrative services’ for its member companies,” provides “employees with job 5 training and safety training,” negotiates with unions “for wages, employee benefits and conditions 6 of employment for workers employed as longshore, marine clerk, watchman/security, drivers, and 7 a number of other jobs.” (Id. ¶¶ 23-24.) On each Plaintiff’s “personnel documents,” “paycheck 8 stubs and W-2 forms,” another Defendant (not PMA) was identified as that Plaintiff’s employer. 9 (Id. ¶ 23.) 10 Plaintiffs are among aggrieved employees who “made hundreds of requests to Defendants 11 to pay their sick pay wages.” (Id. ¶ 76.) In 2020, watchman Plaintiffs joined approximately 200- 12 300 watchmen (not named Plaintiffs) to file “complaints with the California Labor Commissioner, 13 Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, seeking unpaid wages and penalties from Defendant 14 PMA and other Defendants, each of which was served on those Defendants who employed the 15 Watchmen.” (Id.) In 2022 and 2023, Defendants distributed to their employees “$70 million for 16 the risks that these essential workers took by continuing to work during the COVID-19 Pandemic 17 (‘Pandemic Appreciation Pay’).” (Id. ¶ 79.) But Defendants, retaliating against the Watchmen for 18 filing California Labor Commissioner Complaints against them, excluded “all Watchmen from 19 receiving this benefit.” (Id.) 20 In July 2022 “Plaintiffs’ counsel sent a letter to Defendants PMA and a number of other 21 Defendants advising them they were violating the law.” (Id. ¶ 76.) And in August 2023, 22 2 The following are the other named Defendants in Plaintiffs’ complaint: APM Terminals North 23 America Inc.; ARM Terminals Pacific LLC; COSCO Shipping Terminals (North America) Inc.; Everglades Company Terminal, Inc.; Everport Terminal Services, Inc.; Fenix Marine Services, 24 Ltd.; International Transportation Service, LLC; LBCT; Maersk A/S; Marine Terminals Corporation; Metro Cruise Services LLC; Metropolitan Stevedore Company; Pacific Terminal 25 Service Company, LLC; Pasha Stevedoring & Terminals, Inc.; Pasha Stevedoring & Terminals, L.P.; Ports America Cruise, Inc.; SSA Containers, Inc.; SSA Marine, Inc.; SSA Pacific, Inc.; SSA 26 Terminals, LLC; Stevedoring Services of America 811-WA; Total Terminals International, LLC; TRAPAC, LLC; West Basic Container Terminal, LLC; Yan Ming (America) Corporation; Yusen 27 Terminals LLC; APS Stevedoring, LLC; Benicia Port Terminal Company; Innovative Terminal 1 Plaintiffs’ counsel sent another letter to “PMA and other Defendants and the California Labor 2 Workforce Development Agency (‘LWDA’)” again advising them of violations. (Id.) Finally, 3 “[i]n July 2024, Plaintiffs amended the LWDA letter and served it on Defendants,” but Defendants 4 have not compensated Plaintiffs and others “for the sick pay penalties they are owed.” (Id.) All 5 Defendants “continue to employ thousands of workers at various Ports throughout California 6 without compensating them for sick time as the law requires.” (Id. ¶ 77.) “[T]he California Labor 7 Commissioner has not held a single hearing on these claims.” (Id. ¶ 179.) 8 “Defendants have deprived thousands of employees in the State of California, including in 9 the Cities of San Francisco, Oakland, Los Angeles and San Diego, of sick pay wages for many 10 years.” (Id. ¶75.) Defendants “have failed to timely compensate employees with sick pay when 11 they needed to take time off due to any reason set forth in the state and city laws,” and further 12 “failed to maintain a policy that provided employees with paid time off” for sick leave. (Id.) 13 II. Procedural Background 14 Plaintiffs bring ten claims against all Defendants: 15 (1) California Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) claim for violation of California 16 Labor Code §§ 2698, et seq.; 17 (2) violation of San Francisco’s Sick Pay Ordinance; 18 (3) violation of Oakland Municipal Code §§ 5.92, et seq.; 19 (4) violation of Los Angeles Municipal Code §§ 187.00, et seq.; 20 (5) violation of San Diego Municipal Code §§ 29.0101, et seq.; 21 (6) Unlawful Retaliation under California Labor Code §§ 1102.5, 98.6 and Los Angeles 22 Municipal Code § 187.06; 23 (7) violation of California Labor Code § 226 for noncompliant wage statements; 24 (8) violation of California Labor Code §§ 201-203 for untimely payment of wages upon 25 termination; 26 (9) violation of California Labor Code § 204 for untimely payment of wages; 27 (10) violation of the UCL. 1 (1) San Francisco Sick Pay Class; 2 (2) Oakland Sick Pay Class; 3 (3) Los Angeles Sick Pay Class; 4 (4) San Diego Sick Pay Class; 5 (5) Watchmen Pandemic Appreciation Pay Class or Excluded Watchmen; 6 (6) Wage Statement (LC 226) Class; 7 (7) Waiting Time Penalties (LC 201-203) Class; 8 (8) LC 204 Class; 9 (9) UCL (Unfair Competition Law) Class. 10 (Id. ¶ 82.) 11 Plaintiffs filed in San Francisco Superior Court in 2023, and Defendants subsequently 12 answered the complaint and removed the case to federal court on the same day. (Dkt. No. 1.) The 13 case was assigned to a magistrate judge who scheduled the case and held an Initial Case 14 Management Conference on June 13, 2024. (Dkt. Nos. 12, 72.) Plaintiffs filed their Second 15 Amended Complaint (“SAC” or the “complaint”) on October 2, 2024. (Dkt. Nos. 73, 88.) 16 Defendants moved to dismiss the SAC on November 1, 2024. (Dkt. No. 76.) The case was 17 subsequently reassigned to this Court pursuant to General Order 44. (Dkt. No. 87.) 18 Defendants move to dismiss the SAC for failure to allege all Defendants employed some 19 or all of the named Plaintiffs, failure to allege each Defendant acted wrongfully, and failure to 20 plead their various causes of action. (Dkt. No. 76.) Defendants also move to strike paragraph 88 21 of the complaint as well as all class allegations. (Id.) 22 ANALYSIS 23 I. Motion to Dismiss 24 Defendants move to dismiss all causes of action because Plaintiffs fail to allege joint 25 employer liability, specific wrongdoings by Defendants, and because the complaint generally fails 26 to allege sufficient facts plausibly supporting each individual claim. 27 A. Joint Employer Liability 1 defendants were her joint employers … [the plaintiff] must at least allege some facts in support of 2 this legal conclusion.’” Lesnik v. Eisenmann SE, 374 F. Supp. 3d 923, 942 (N.D. Cal. 2019) 3 (quoting Johnson v. Serenity Transp., Inc., No. 15-cv-02004-JSC, 2016 WL 270952 at *10 (N.D. 4 Cal. Jan. 22, 2016) (quoting Hibbs-Rines v. Seagate Technologies, LLC, 08-cv-05430-SI, 2009 5 WL 513496 at *5 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 2, 2009))); see also Naumann v. Central Admixture Pharmacy 6 Services, Inc., 24-cv-00356-L-BGS, 2024 WL 4441080 at *2 (S.D. Cal. June 4, 2024) (quoting 7 Lesnik, 374 F. Supp. 3d at 942); Haralson v. United Airlines, Inc., 224 F. Supp. 3d 928, 938 (N.D. 8 Cal. 2016) (“To be liable for the California wage and hour violations alleged here, United must 9 have employed Haralson and the putative class.”) (citations omitted). “The controlling case on 10 joint employment in California is Martinez v. Combs.” Medina v. Equilon Ent., LLC, 68 Cal. App. 11 5th 868, 874 (2021) (citations omitted). 3 Martinez held “to employ” under California law means 12 “(a) to exercise control over the wages, hours, or working conditions, or (b) to suffer or permit to 13 work, or (c) to engage, thereby creating a common law employment relationship.” Martinez v. 14 Combs, 49 Cal. 4th 35, 64 (2010). While “[t]he first and third standards are self-explanatory,” the 15 second definition “is extraordinarily broad, reaching ‘all individual workers who can reasonably 16 be viewed as ‘working in the [hiring entity’s] business.’” Medina, 68 Cal. App. 5th at 874-75 17 (quoting Dynamex Operations W. v. Superior Court, 4 Cal. 5th 903, 953 (2018) (quoting 18 Martinez, 49 Cal. 4th at 69)). 19 Plaintiffs fail to allege facts plausibly supporting an inference all Defendants are their joint, 20 or co-employers and are all therefore liable to all Plaintiffs. (Dkt. No. 88 ¶ 22.) Plaintiffs do not 21 identify which Defendants employed which Plaintiffs and only state that each Plaintiff’s paystub 22 named a Defendant “as ‘Employer’” but do not identify which Defendant was named on which 23 Plaintiff’s paystubs. (Id. ¶ 23.) The complaint thus fails to adequately allege any Defendant meets 24 the Martinez standard. 25 Plaintiffs plead more specific facts as to PMA than any other Defendant, alleging it: 26 3 “Although Martinez involved alleged minimum wage violations under California Labor Code § 27 1194, California courts have applied the Martinez definition of employment to causes of action 1 (1) “handles ‘integrated labor relations, human resources and administrative services’” 2 relating to Plaintiffs’ employment; 3 (2) negotiates with the unions “for wages, employee benefits and conditions of 4 employment for workers;” 5 (3) “provides those employees with job training and safety training;” 6 (4) “processes weekly payrolls” for them; 7 (5) maintains fringe benefits and a 401(k) Plan for Plaintiffs; 8 (6) “‘submits daily work orders for waterfront labor’” which Plaintiffs fulfill. 9 (Id. ¶ 24.) But the complaint does not allege if any Plaintiff belongs to one of the unions PMA 10 negotiates with, or if any Plaintiff was trained by PMA. The complaint alleges PMA handles 11 fringe benefits, human resources, and submitted daily work orders for Plaintiffs. (Id.) In 12 Martinez, the court held a defendant does not employ a worker if it lacks “the power to prevent 13 plaintiffs from working” and another “had the exclusive power to hire and fire his workers, to set 14 their wages and hours, and to tell them when and where to report to work.” Martinez, 49 Cal. 4th 15 at 70. Without allegations regarding which Defendants employ which Plaintiffs or whether PMA 16 actually set wages and trained Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs do not properly plead an employee-employer 17 relationship. Thus, Plaintiffs allegations as to PMA are insufficient to plausibly support an 18 inference of a joint employment relationship. 19 Plaintiffs also argue all Defendants may be liable as a single employer under the Laird 20 “integrated enterprise” test. Laird v. Capital Cities/ABC, Inc., 68 Cal. App. 4th 727 (1998), 21 overruled on other grounds by Reid v. Google, 50 Cal. 4th 512 (2010). “Two corporations may be 22 treated as a single employer” when considering “interrelation of operations, common 23 management, centralized control of labor relations, and common ownership or financial control.” 24 Id. at 737-38 (citations omitted). The complaint’s allegations do not plausibly support an 25 inference of such a relationship between any of the defendants, let alone all of them. As noted 26 above, Plaintiffs do not allege which Defendants pay their wages or control their day-to-day 27 functions. Plaintiffs do not allege all 33 Defendants are employers of all 16 Plaintiffs, but rather 1 23, 25.) Though Plaintiffs allege Defendants “operate[] and control[]” PMA, these conclusory 2 allegations are insufficient to plausibly support an inference Defendants in fact do so and how this 3 fact would necessarily mean they are all employers for all Plaintiffs. (Id. ¶ 24.) Instead, Plaintiffs 4 only allege “[e]ach aforementioned Defendant is and/or was at all times relevant hereto Plaintiffs’ 5 co-employer, joint employer, and/or the presumed employer of Plaintiffs, identified on paycheck 6 stubs, per Plaintiffs’ personnel documents.” (Id. ¶ 59.) Without more, the complaint’s allegations 7 do not plausibly support an inference any Defendant employed any Plaintiff. See, e.g. Haralson, 8 224 F. Supp. 3d at 938 (“To be liable for the California wage and hour violations alleged here, 9 United must have employed Haralson and the putative class.”) (citations omitted). 10 Plaintiffs do not sufficiently allege an employer-employee relationship between themselves 11 and Defendants and so cannot plead these labor violations against Defendants. See Lesnik, 374 F. 12 Supp. 3d at 942. Therefore, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to dismiss on the grounds 13 Plaintiffs fail to plausibly allege any Defendant employed any Plaintiff. 14 B. Allegations as to Each Defendant 15 “As a general rule, when a pleading fails ‘to allege what role each Defendant played in the 16 alleged harm,’ this ‘makes it exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, for individual Defendants to 17 respond to Plaintiffs’ allegations.’” Sebastian Brown Prods., LLC v. Muzooka, Inc., 143 F. Supp. 18 3d 1026, 1037 (N.D. Cal. 2015) (quoting Adobe Sys. Inc. v. Blue Source Grp., Inc., No. 14-cv- 19 02147-LHK, 2015 WL 5118509, at *10 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 31, 2015) (quoting In re iPhone 20 Application Litig., No. 11-MD-02250-LHK, 2011 WL 4403963, at *8 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 20, 21 2011))). Because “a complaint which ‘lumps together multiple defendants in one broad allegation 22 fails to satisfy the notice requirement of Rule 8(a)(2).’” Seeno v. Discovery Builders, Inc., No. 23- 23 cv-04072-EJD, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 20, 2024) (cleaned up) (quoting Muzooka, 143 F. Supp. 3d at 24 1037). 25 Here, Plaintiffs lump together all Defendants in almost every allegation in the complaint. 26 The Court cannot ascertain which allegations are made as to which Defendants and what 27 wrongdoing was allegedly committed by each Defendant. See Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 1 statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,’ in order to ‘give the defendant 2 fair notice of what the … claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.”) (quoting Conley v. 3 Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). Further, as explained supra, without alleging which Defendant 4 employed which Plaintiff, Plaintiffs cannot plausibly plead Defendants harmed them by failing to 5 provide sick leave, sick pay, or any other harm alleged. 6 Because Plaintiffs fail to plead individual wrongdoing by all Defendants, Defendants’ 7 motion to dismiss is GRANTED. 8 C. PAGA Claim Based on California’s Sick Leave Law 9 PAGA “provides civil penalties for the violation of underlying law.” Chatman v. 10 WeDriveU, Inc., 22-cv-04849-WHO, 2022 WL 15654244 at *12 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 28, 2022). 11 Plaintiffs’ PAGA claim is based on several labor violations, though Defendants move specifically 12 to dismiss the PAGA claim based on violations of California Labor Code §§ 246 and 246.5. 13 Under § 246, California employees who work “for the same employer for 30 or more days 14 within a year from the commencement of employment [are] entitled to sick days” accruing “at a 15 rate of not less than one hour per every 30 hours worked.” And under § 246.5, employers must 16 “[u]pon the oral or written request of an employee” provide sick days for “(1) Diagnosis, care, or 17 treatment of an existing health condition of, or preventive care for, an employee or an employee’s 18 family member[] (2) For an employee who is a victim or whose family member is a victim [of 19 domestic abuse].” 20 The deficiencies in Plaintiffs’ complaint as to the employer-employee relationship require 21 the Court dismiss Plaintiffs’ PAGA claim based on paid sick leave violations. Plaintiffs have not 22 alleged which Defendants violated which Plaintiffs’ rights by failing to provide sick leave or 23 provide sick days under either § 246 or 246.5. The complaint alleges Plaintiffs “took time off 24 work without pay” and lists a number of reasons Plaintiffs took time off, (Dkt. No. 88 ¶ 91), and 25 that all Defendants lacked a sick pay policy (Id. ¶ 76). But the complaint does not allege how 26 many hours/days Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants they complain denied them sick pay. (Id.) 27 Such threadbare allegations “do not indicate that Plaintiffs would have qualified for paid sick 1 Technologies, Inc., 19-cv-06462-EMC, 2020 WL 3544982, at *3 (N.D. Cal. June 30, 2020). 2 Absent such allegations, the Court cannot determine whether or how Plaintiffs were harmed by 3 each or any Defendant’s conduct. 4 Plaintiffs’ PAGA claim based on California Labor Code §§ 246 and 246.5 is DISMISSED 5 with leave to amend. 6 D. Failure to State Municipal-Law Based Claims 7 Plaintiffs bring claims under several municipal laws but fail to allege where they worked 8 during the relevant period. (Dkt. No. 88 ¶¶ 6-21.) Each law protects workers who have worked a 9 minimum number of hours within that municipality. See Oakland Municipal Code §§ 5.92, et 10 seq.; Los Angeles Municipal Code §§ 187.00, et seq.; San Diego Municipal Code §§ 29.0101, et 11 seq.; San Francisco Labor & Employment Code § 11.4. However, Plaintiffs have not alleged 12 where any of them work or worked. Instead, Plaintiffs bring each local law claim on behalf of all 13 Plaintiffs, regardless of where they worked because “one or more Plaintiffs worked in each of the 14 cities for the minimum hours to assert a claim to sick pay.” (Dkt. No. 77 at 10.) Without 15 allegations as to which Plaintiffs worked in which cities, the Court cannot determine whether any 16 Plaintiff has plausibly pled a claim under that city’s law. Further, to the extent Plaintiffs allege 17 Defendants are bound by each city’s laws, they fail to allege which cities Defendants operate in or 18 where these violations occurred as to each Defendant. See Adams v. Johnson, 355 F.3d 1179, 19 1183 (9th Cir. 2004) (“[C]onclusory allegations of law and unwarranted inferences are insufficient 20 to defeat a motion to dismiss.”). 21 All claims based on municipal law are therefore DISMISSED with leave to amend. 22 E. Whistleblower Retaliation 23 First, insofar as Plaintiffs allege a violation of Los Angeles Municipal Code §§ 187.06- 24 188.08 as the basis for their retaliation claim, such claim is improperly pled for the same reasons 25 discussed as to all municipal law claims. 26 Next, to state a prima facie whistleblower retaliation claim under California Labor Code § 27 1102.5, “a plaintiff must show that she engaged in protected activity, that she was thereafter 1 two.” Soukup v. Law Offices of Herbert Hafif, 39 Cal. 4th 260, 287-88 (2006) (quoting Morgan v. 2 Regents of Univ. of Cal., 88 Cal. App. 4th 52, 69 (2000)). This means “a prerequisite to asserting 3 a violation of Labor Code section 1102.5 is the existence of an employer-employee relationship at 4 the time the allegedly retaliatory action occurred.” Id. 5 Plaintiffs fail to allege which Defendants employed Plaintiffs Hill and Johnson, and also 6 fail to allege facts that would support an inference they have standing to sue Defendants who did 7 not employ them, especially because Plaintiffs fail to allege what actions were taken by which 8 Defendants. Plaintiffs do not allege which Defendants received the California Labor 9 Commissioner complaints or the attorney letters they allege provide the basis for Defendants’ 10 knowledge of wrongdoing. (Id. ¶¶ 147-48.) And without these allegations, Plaintiffs cannot 11 plausibly allege there was “a causal link” between the protected activity—submitting Labor 12 Commissioner complaints—and the adverse employment action—excluding watchmen from 13 receiving Pandemic Appreciation Pay. Soukup, 39 Cal. 4th at 287-88. 14 For the above reasons, Plaintiffs’ whistleblower retaliation claim is DISMISSED with 15 leave to amend. 16 F. Unlawful Business Practices Based on California’s Sick Leave Law 17 Plaintiff’s UCL claim is predicated on violations of municipal laws, failure to pay 18 Pandemic Appreciation Pay to all watchmen, and violations of California Labor Code §§ 201-204 19 for failure to pay sick pay wages. (Dkt. No. 88 ¶ 178.) Because Plaintiffs have not properly pled 20 sick pay violations against specific Defendants or unlawful retaliation, the UCL claim premised on 21 these violations is unsupportable. 22 As such, the Court DISMISSES Plaintiffs’ UCL claim with leave to amend. 23 G. Plaintiffs’ Wage Statement Claim 24 Under California Labor Code § 226, employers are required to itemize nine categories of 25 information in their employees’ wage statements. Failure to comply entitles employees “to an 26 injunction compelling compliance and an award of costs and reasonable attorney’s fees,” and 27 employees who suffer injury “as a result of a knowing and intentional failure by an employer to 1 Services, Inc., 15 Cal. 5th 1056, 1064 (2024); Cal. Labor Code § 226(e)(1). However, “inaccurate 2 wage statements alone do not justify penalties; the plaintiffs must establish injury flowing from 3 the inaccuracy.” Maldonado v. Epsilon Plastics, Inc., 22 Cal. App. 5th 1308, 1334 (2018). In 4 Maldonado, the California court explained:

5 [W]hen there is a wage and hour violation, the hours worked will differ from what was truly earned. But only the absence of the hours 6 worked will give rise to an inference of injury; the absence of accurate wages earned will be remedied by the violated wage and hour law 7 itself … . 8 Id. at 1336-37. Thus, when an employer mistakenly underpays employees, they are entitled to 9 their pay, as well as interest and attorney’s fees. Id. at 1337 (citing Cal. Labor Code § 1194(a)). 10 But in such circumstances, the law “does not mandate that they also receive penalties for the wage 11 statements which accurately reflected their compensation under the rates at which they had 12 worked at the time.” Id. 13 Here, Plaintiffs do not allege facts that plausibly support an inference the wage statements 14 injured Plaintiffs, let alone that any particular Defendant’s wage statements injured any particular 15 Plaintiff. Plaintiffs do not even allege which Defendants are named on which Plaintiffs’ allegedly 16 violative wage statements. Further, without alleging which Defendants received notification from 17 Plaintiffs that they were violating the law, Plaintiffs have not plausibly alleged any Defendant was 18 committing a knowing or intentional omission of § 226 information. 19 For these reasons, Plaintiffs’ § 226 claims are DISMISSED with leave to amend. 20 H. Waiting Time Penalties 21 California Labor Code §§ 201-203 require employers pay employees unpaid earned wages 22 upon their termination. Plaintiffs Seals, Williams, and Green Jr. seek to bring this claim against 23 all Defendants. But again, the same deficiencies arise. While it is true that “Plaintiffs have 24 identified which of them are no longer employed,” (Dkt. No. 77 at 19), Plaintiffs have not alleged 25 which Defendants employed these particular Plaintiffs, and how Plaintiffs would have standing to 26 sue Defendants who did not employ or terminate them. 27 As such, Plaintiffs’ Eighth Cause of Action for violations of California Labor Code §§ 1 I. Untimely Payment of Wages During Employment 2 California Labor Code § 204 requires employers pay wages twice a month. Section 210 3 provides a private right of action to enforce violations of § 204. Cal. Labor Code § 210. 4 Plaintiffs’ § 204 claim is improperly alleged for the same reasons stated above. Without 5 allegations regarding which Defendants paid which Plaintiffs, it is impossible to determine how all 6 Defendants are liable to all Plaintiffs for the same underpayment of wages. Further, courts 7 regularly hold the mere underpayment of wages is insufficient to support a § 204 claim. See 8 Huynh v. Jabil Inc., No. 22-CV-07460-WHO, 2023 WL 1802417, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 7, 2023) 9 (dismissing section 204 claim, citing “decisions of other judges in this District for the proposition 10 that a plaintiff cannot assert a section 204 claim based only on alleged ‘underpaid wages.’”) (citing 11 Carter v. Jai-Put Enter. Inc., No. 18-CV-06313-DMR, 2020 WL 3545094, at *10 (N.D. Cal. June 12 30, 2020) (rejecting a section 204 claim because “a violation of section 204 cannot be premised 13 solely on the claim that an employer underpaid wages”); Frausto v. Bank of Am., Nat’l Ass’n, No. 14 18-CV-01983-MEJ, 2018 WL 3659251, at *10 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 2, 2018) (explaining section 204 15 “simply regulates the timing of wage payments and does not provide for the payment of any 16 particular type of wages or create any substantive right to wages”)); Scott v. Cintas Corp., No. 23- 17 cv-05764-JSC, 2024 WL 1421277, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 2, 2024) (dismissing section 204 claim 18 because the plaintiff did not allege the defendant failed to timely pay wages, only that it underpaid 19 his wages). Plaintiffs here allege Defendants underpaid their wages by failing to provide sick pay, 20 so they have failed to state a claim under § 204. (See Dkt. No. 88 ¶¶ 171 (“This cause of action is 21 derivative of and wholly dependent upon the wage claims set forth for unpaid sick pay wages that 22 remained unpaid.”).) 23 For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs’ ninth claim for violation of California Labor Code § 24 204 is DISMISSED with leave to amend. 25 II. Motion to Strike 26 “The court may strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant, 27 immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f). The Rule functions to 1 dispensing with those issues prior to trial.” Whittlestone, Inc. v. Handi-Craft Co., 618 F.3d 970, 2 973 (9th Cir. 2010) (citation omitted). “Motions to strike are generally disfavored” and “should 3 only be granted if the matter sought to be stricken clearly has no possible bearing on the subject 4 matter of the litigation.” Gutzalenko v. City of Richmond, 723 F. Supp. 3d 748, 755 (N.D. Cal. 5 2024) (citations omitted). 6 A. Paragraph 88 7 Defendants move to strike SAC ¶ 88, where Plaintiffs allege Defendants are in violation of 8 federal public policy as set out by Executive Order 13706 by failing to pay sick leave to its 9 employees even though it contracts with the federal government. (Dkt. No. 88 ¶ 88.) While 10 Plaintiffs do not bring any claims against Defendants under the Executive Order, Defendants have 11 not shown the material is redundant, impertinent, or scandalous. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f). Further, 12 Defendants fail to show that time and money would be unnecessarily expended were the paragraph 13 to remain in Plaintiffs’ complaint. See Whittlestone, 618 F.3d at 973. The paragraph merely states 14 federal public policy regarding sick pay and how Plaintiffs believe Defendants are violating that 15 policy. In a case about sick leave, such a paragraph is not irrelevant nor impertinent. 16 As such, Plaintiffs’ motion to strike paragraph 88 of the SAC is DENIED. 17 B. Class Allegations 18 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 permits a court to “require that the pleadings be 19 amended to eliminate allegations about representation of absent persons and that the action 20 proceed accordingly.” However, courts in this District do not generally consider motions to strike 21 class allegations at the pleading stage. See Fukaya v. Daiso California LLC, 23-cv-00099-JSC, 22 2023 WL 3436092, at *4 (N.D. Cal. May 11, 2023); see also In re Nexus 6P Prod. Liab. Litig., 23 293 F. Supp. 3d 888, 960-61 (N.D. Cal. 2018) (“Even courts that have been willing to entertain 24 such a motion early in the proceedings have applied a very strict standard to motions to strike class 25 allegations on the pleadings. Only if the court is convinced that any questions of law are clear and 26 not in dispute, and that under no set of circumstances could the claim or defense succeed may the 27 allegations be stricken.” (cleaned up)). 1 unascertainable. At this juncture, Plaintiffs have not pled sufficient facts to support their class 2 claims, as noted above. As such, the Court DENIES AS MOOT the motion to strike or dismiss 3 Plaintiffs’ class claims at this time. 4 CONCLUSION 5 Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend for failure to state 6 a claim upon which relief may be granted, that is, all claims against all Defendants are 7 DISMISSED. Further, the Court DENIES Defendants’ motion to strike both paragraph 88 and the 8 class allegations at this time. Any third amended complaint shall be filed no later than February 9 27, 2025. The Court sets a further case management conference for April 16, 2025 at 2:00pm via 10 Zoom video. A joint case management conference statement is due one week in advance. 11 This Order disposes of Docket No. 76. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 Dated: February 6, 2025 14 15 JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY 16 United States District Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27