Quiroz v. ADS-Myers, Inc.

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: September 24, 2021
• Docket: 3:20-cv-01755
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 JENNY QUIROZ, et al., Case No. 20-cv-01755-JD

8 Plaintiffs, ORDER RE MOTION TO DISMISS v. 9 Re: Dkt. No. 31 10 ADS-MYERS, INC., et al., Defendants. 11

12 13 Two motions are pending in this putative class action lawsuit against defendants ADS- 14 MYERS, Inc., and Karoline Myers (collectively, ADS) for alleged violations of federal and 15 California state wage and hour laws. ADS asked to compel arbitration of named plaintiff Jenny 16 Quiroz’s claims pursuant to an arbitration agreement in an employment contract. Dkt. No. 32. 17 That motion raised contract formation questions requiring a bench trial. See Dkt. No. 39. The 18 Court will file shortly the findings of fact and conclusions of law for the bench trial. 19 This order resolves ADS’s motion to dismiss the claims of named plaintiff Brayan Barrios 20 under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). Dkt. No. 31-1. Barrios is not said to have signed 21 a contract with an arbitration agreement, and so the arbitration order will affect only Quiroz and 22 her claims. 23 The thrust of ADS’s motion is that Barrios lacks standing to sue because he was never an 24 ADS employee. Id. at 4. The parties’ familiarity with the record is assumed, and the motion is 25 denied. 26 The reason for the denial is straightforward. The second amended complaint (SAC) 27 alleges that Barrios was “employed” by ADS as a janitor, that he was a “non-exempt employee,” 1 per workweek” for ADS. Dkt. No. 30 §] 18(B)-(C), 19-20. ADS proffered evidence indicating 2 || that it has no records of employing Barrios. See Dkt. Nos. 31-3, 31-4, 31-5. Barrios responded 3 with representations that he will be able to demonstrate an employment relationship with ADS. 4 || See Dkt. No. 36 at 4-9. 5 This is a quintessential dispute of fact that the Court declines to resolve in the Rule 12(b) 6 || context. This outcome is particularly warranted under Rule 12(b)(1) when, as here, “the 7 || jurisdictional issue and substantive issues are so intertwined that the question of jurisdiction is 8 dependent on the resolution of factual issues going to the merits of an action.” Patel v. Facebook, 9 || Inc., 290 F. Supp. 3d 948, 952 (N.D. Cal. 2018) (quoting Safe Air for Everyone v. Meyer, 373 F.3d 10 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2004)). 11 The better course of action is a motion for summary judgment based on a well-developed 12 || factual record. Consequently, the motion is denied without prejudice. ADS may file a summary 5 13 || judgment motion as developments warrant. IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 15 Dated: September 24, 2021 2 16

LY 8 JAMEYPONATO. Unitedgftates District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28