1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 SAN JOSE DIVISION 7 8 HANS SANCHEZ, Case No. 5:20-cv-06538-EJD
9 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS 10 v.
11 GREEN MESSENGERS, INC., et al., Re: Dkt. No. 31 Defendants. 12
13 Plaintiff Hans Sanchez brings a putative class action, alleging that Defendants Green 14 Messengers and Amazon.com Services failed to provide delivery drivers with adequate meal and 15 rest periods and wage statements. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), 16 Defendant Amazon.com (hereinafter “Amazon”) moves to dismiss Plaintiff’s Second Amended 17 Complaint (“SAC”) on the grounds that the complaint fails to allege that an employment 18 relationship existed between Amazon and the Plaintiff. The Court agrees and dismisses the SAC 19 with leave to amend.1 20 I. BACKGROUND 21 Defendant Green Messengers employed Plaintiff in 2019 as a delivery driver. But see 22 SAC ¶ 20, Dkt. No. 26 (stating that Plaintiff worked for “Defendants” as a “non-exempt, hourly 23 employee from approximately March 2019 until July 20, 2019, as a delivery driver.”). Plaintiff 24 alleges that he and the putative class members were not provided with meal periods of at least 25 thirty minutes for each five-hour work period due to “Defendants’” policy of not scheduling meal 26
27 1 After considering the parties papers, the Court finds this motion suitable for consideration without oral argument. See N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). 1 periods as part of each work shift, imposing too many deliveries on employees, and failing to 2 provide employees with a formal written meal and rest period policy that encouraged employees to 3 take their meal and rest periods. SAC ¶ 21. Plaintiff alleges that although he and the class 4 regularly were not afforded meal breaks, Defendants still automatically deducted thirty minutes 5 from their paychecks, regardless of whether they took meal breaks. SAC ¶ 23. Plaintiff further 6 alleges that he and the putative class members were not provided with rest periods of at least ten 7 minutes for each four-hour work period. SAC ¶ 26. Plaintiff also alleges that he and the putative 8 class were not paid: minimum wage for all hours worked, overtime, for business expenses, or 9 provided with accurate itemized wage statements. SAC ¶¶ 28–45. Plaintiff alleges various causes 10 of action related to these claims. 11 II. LEGAL STANDARD 12 A motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) tests the sufficiency of 13 a complaint. Navarro v. Block, 250 F.3d 729, 732 (9th Cir. 2001). Dismissal is warranted under 14 Rule 12(b)(6) where the complaint lacks a cognizable legal theory. Robertson v. Dean Witter 15 Reynolds, Inc., 749 F.2d 530, 534 (9th Cir. 1984). A complaint may also be dismissed where it 16 presents a cognizable legal theory yet fails to plead essential facts required to support the theory. 17 Id. A plaintiff need not give “detailed factual allegations,” but must plead sufficient facts that, if 18 true, “raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 19 544, 545 (2007); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (“To survive a motion to 20 dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim for 21 relief that is plausible on its face.” (citation and quotation marks omitted)). A claim is facially 22 plausible when the factual allegations permit “the court to draw the reasonable inference that the 23 defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. at 678; see also Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 24 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009) (“[F]or a complaint to survive a motion to dismiss, the non- 25 conclusory ‘factual content,’ and reasonable inferences from that content, must be plausibly 26 suggestive of a claim entitling the plaintiff to relief.”). 27 1 In reviewing a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), the court must assume the truth of 2 all factual allegations and must construe all inferences from them in the light most favorable to the 3 nonmoving party. Thompson v. Davis, 295 F.3d 890, 895 (9th Cir. 2002). However, this Court 4 need not accept legal conclusions as true merely because they are cast in the form of factual 5 allegations. Ileto v. Glock Inc., 349 F.3d 1191, 1200 (9th Cir. 2003). 6 III. DISCUSSION 7 Amazon argues the SAC must be dismissed because it does not contain an allegation that 8 Amazon “employed” Plaintiff as required to show a violation of the California Labor Code. 9 Defendant Amazon’s Notice of Motion and Motion to Dismiss (“Mot.”) at 6–9, Dkt. No. 31. 10 Plaintiff contends that he has no obligation at this phase to plead the business relationship between 11 Amazon and Green Messengers. Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant Amazon’s Motion to 12 Dismiss (“Opp.”) at 2–6, Dkt. No. 38. The Court disagrees. 13 An employer-employee relationship is required in order to establish liability for Labor 14 Code violations. See Martinez v. Combs, 231 P.3d 259, 268 (Cal. 2010). “Employ” means “(a) to 15 exercise control over the [plaintiff’s] wages, hours or working conditions, or (b) to suffer or 16 permit [a plaintiff] to work, or (c) to engage, thereby creating a common law employment 17 relationship.” Id. at 278. It is possible for two defendants to “jointly employ” a plaintiff. 18 However, the “joint-employer” theory requires a plaintiff to demonstrate that each “employed” the 19 plaintiff within the meaning of one of the three alternative definitions. See Curry v. Equilon 20 Enters., LLC, 233 Cal. Rptr. 3d 295, 309 (Ct. App. 2018). 21 The joint-employer doctrine recognizes that “even where business entities are separate, if 22 they share control of the terms of conditions of an individual’s employment, both companies can 23 qualify as employers.” Guitierrez v. Carter Bros. Sec. Servs., LLC, 2014 WL 5487793, at *3 24 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 29, 2014) (citing Real v. Driscoll Strawberry Assocs., Inc., 603 F.2d 748, 769–70 25 (9th Cir. 1979). While plaintiffs need not conclusively establish that defendants were their joint 26 employers at the pleading stage, plaintiffs “must at least allege some facts in support of this legal 27 conclusion.” Hibbs-Rines v. Seagate Techs., LLC, 2009 WL 513496, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 2, 1 2009) (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (noting that a plaintiff must allege more than “labels and 2 conclusions”)). Indeed, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) requires a plaintiff to differentiate 3 allegations against multiple defendants. Holtegaard v. Howroyd-Wright Employment Agency, 4 Inc., 2020 WL 6051328, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 11, 2020); see also Manukyan v. Cach, LLC, 2012 5 WL 6199938, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 11, 2012) (“A court should dismiss a complaint that makes 6 undifferentiated allegations against multiple defendants, because such a complaint fails to put each 7 defendant on notice of the alleged wrongdoing.”); In re Toyota Motor Corp. Unintended 8 Acceleration Mktg. Sales Pracs., and Prods. Liab.
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 SAN JOSE DIVISION 7 8 HANS SANCHEZ, Case No. 5:20-cv-06538-EJD
9 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS 10 v.
11 GREEN MESSENGERS, INC., et al., Re: Dkt. No. 31 Defendants. 12
13 Plaintiff Hans Sanchez brings a putative class action, alleging that Defendants Green 14 Messengers and Amazon.com Services failed to provide delivery drivers with adequate meal and 15 rest periods and wage statements. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), 16 Defendant Amazon.com (hereinafter “Amazon”) moves to dismiss Plaintiff’s Second Amended 17 Complaint (“SAC”) on the grounds that the complaint fails to allege that an employment 18 relationship existed between Amazon and the Plaintiff. The Court agrees and dismisses the SAC 19 with leave to amend.1 20 I. BACKGROUND 21 Defendant Green Messengers employed Plaintiff in 2019 as a delivery driver. But see 22 SAC ¶ 20, Dkt. No. 26 (stating that Plaintiff worked for “Defendants” as a “non-exempt, hourly 23 employee from approximately March 2019 until July 20, 2019, as a delivery driver.”). Plaintiff 24 alleges that he and the putative class members were not provided with meal periods of at least 25 thirty minutes for each five-hour work period due to “Defendants’” policy of not scheduling meal 26
27 1 After considering the parties papers, the Court finds this motion suitable for consideration without oral argument. See N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). 1 periods as part of each work shift, imposing too many deliveries on employees, and failing to 2 provide employees with a formal written meal and rest period policy that encouraged employees to 3 take their meal and rest periods. SAC ¶ 21. Plaintiff alleges that although he and the class 4 regularly were not afforded meal breaks, Defendants still automatically deducted thirty minutes 5 from their paychecks, regardless of whether they took meal breaks. SAC ¶ 23. Plaintiff further 6 alleges that he and the putative class members were not provided with rest periods of at least ten 7 minutes for each four-hour work period. SAC ¶ 26. Plaintiff also alleges that he and the putative 8 class were not paid: minimum wage for all hours worked, overtime, for business expenses, or 9 provided with accurate itemized wage statements. SAC ¶¶ 28–45. Plaintiff alleges various causes 10 of action related to these claims. 11 II. LEGAL STANDARD 12 A motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) tests the sufficiency of 13 a complaint. Navarro v. Block, 250 F.3d 729, 732 (9th Cir. 2001). Dismissal is warranted under 14 Rule 12(b)(6) where the complaint lacks a cognizable legal theory. Robertson v. Dean Witter 15 Reynolds, Inc., 749 F.2d 530, 534 (9th Cir. 1984). A complaint may also be dismissed where it 16 presents a cognizable legal theory yet fails to plead essential facts required to support the theory. 17 Id. A plaintiff need not give “detailed factual allegations,” but must plead sufficient facts that, if 18 true, “raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 19 544, 545 (2007); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (“To survive a motion to 20 dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim for 21 relief that is plausible on its face.” (citation and quotation marks omitted)). A claim is facially 22 plausible when the factual allegations permit “the court to draw the reasonable inference that the 23 defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. at 678; see also Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 24 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009) (“[F]or a complaint to survive a motion to dismiss, the non- 25 conclusory ‘factual content,’ and reasonable inferences from that content, must be plausibly 26 suggestive of a claim entitling the plaintiff to relief.”). 27 1 In reviewing a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), the court must assume the truth of 2 all factual allegations and must construe all inferences from them in the light most favorable to the 3 nonmoving party. Thompson v. Davis, 295 F.3d 890, 895 (9th Cir. 2002). However, this Court 4 need not accept legal conclusions as true merely because they are cast in the form of factual 5 allegations. Ileto v. Glock Inc., 349 F.3d 1191, 1200 (9th Cir. 2003). 6 III. DISCUSSION 7 Amazon argues the SAC must be dismissed because it does not contain an allegation that 8 Amazon “employed” Plaintiff as required to show a violation of the California Labor Code. 9 Defendant Amazon’s Notice of Motion and Motion to Dismiss (“Mot.”) at 6–9, Dkt. No. 31. 10 Plaintiff contends that he has no obligation at this phase to plead the business relationship between 11 Amazon and Green Messengers. Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant Amazon’s Motion to 12 Dismiss (“Opp.”) at 2–6, Dkt. No. 38. The Court disagrees. 13 An employer-employee relationship is required in order to establish liability for Labor 14 Code violations. See Martinez v. Combs, 231 P.3d 259, 268 (Cal. 2010). “Employ” means “(a) to 15 exercise control over the [plaintiff’s] wages, hours or working conditions, or (b) to suffer or 16 permit [a plaintiff] to work, or (c) to engage, thereby creating a common law employment 17 relationship.” Id. at 278. It is possible for two defendants to “jointly employ” a plaintiff. 18 However, the “joint-employer” theory requires a plaintiff to demonstrate that each “employed” the 19 plaintiff within the meaning of one of the three alternative definitions. See Curry v. Equilon 20 Enters., LLC, 233 Cal. Rptr. 3d 295, 309 (Ct. App. 2018). 21 The joint-employer doctrine recognizes that “even where business entities are separate, if 22 they share control of the terms of conditions of an individual’s employment, both companies can 23 qualify as employers.” Guitierrez v. Carter Bros. Sec. Servs., LLC, 2014 WL 5487793, at *3 24 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 29, 2014) (citing Real v. Driscoll Strawberry Assocs., Inc., 603 F.2d 748, 769–70 25 (9th Cir. 1979). While plaintiffs need not conclusively establish that defendants were their joint 26 employers at the pleading stage, plaintiffs “must at least allege some facts in support of this legal 27 conclusion.” Hibbs-Rines v. Seagate Techs., LLC, 2009 WL 513496, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 2, 1 2009) (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (noting that a plaintiff must allege more than “labels and 2 conclusions”)). Indeed, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) requires a plaintiff to differentiate 3 allegations against multiple defendants. Holtegaard v. Howroyd-Wright Employment Agency, 4 Inc., 2020 WL 6051328, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 11, 2020); see also Manukyan v. Cach, LLC, 2012 5 WL 6199938, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 11, 2012) (“A court should dismiss a complaint that makes 6 undifferentiated allegations against multiple defendants, because such a complaint fails to put each 7 defendant on notice of the alleged wrongdoing.”); In re Toyota Motor Corp. Unintended 8 Acceleration Mktg. Sales Pracs., and Prods. Liab. Litig., 826 F. Supp. 2d 1180, 1206 (C.D. Cal. 9 2011) (“[T]he Court notes that the SAC’s wholesale failure to meaningfully differentiate among 10 the Defendants would ordinarily require dismissal of and repleading of the[] claims . . . .”). 11 The SAC is deficient because it fails to differentiate between the two Defendants, see SAC 12 ¶¶ 15, 21, 24, and fails to allege how Amazon controlled Plaintiff’s employment, see SAC ¶ 8. 13 For example, the SAC alleges only that “at all relevant times mentioned herein, some or all of the 14 defendants were the representatives, agents, employees, partners, directors, associates, joint 15 ventures, principals, or co-participants of some or all of the defendants, and in doing the things 16 alleged herein, were acting within the course and scope of such relationship and with the full 17 knowledge, consent and ratification by such other defendants.” SAC ¶ 8. It is unclear from the 18 SAC how Amazon controlled Green Messengers’ employment of Plaintiff and the other putative 19 class members (if at all). Because Plaintiff’s allegations as to Amazon are not sufficiently 20 differentiated and fail to explain Amazon’s relationship to the putative class, the Court must 21 dismiss the SAC in its entirety as each claim depends on a predicate allegation that Amazon 22 employed Plaintiff and the putative class. For this reason, the Court does not reach Amazon’s 23 Motion to Strike. 24 When dismissing a complaint for failure to state a claim, a court should grant leave to 25 amend “unless it determines that the pleading could not possibly be cured by the allegation of 26 other facts.” Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000). Although the Court has 27 determined that Plaintiff fails to state a claim, it is possible Plaintiff can cure his allegation by 1 alleging, among other things, more particular facts as to Amazon’s business relationship with 2 Green Messengers. In the amended pleading, Plaintiff should ensure that allegations of California 3 Labor Code violations specify which Defendant is responsible for each alleged violation. If 4 || Plaintiff's allegations rely on a joint employer theory of liability, he should specify the working 5 relationship between Defendants and allege each Defendants amount of control over Plaintiff and 6 || the class’s wages, hours, or working conditions, to the extent possible. 7 IV. CONCLUSION 8 Amazon’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff's SAC in its entirety is GRANTED with leave to 9 amend. Should Plaintiff choose to file an amended complaint, he must do so by November 29, 10 2021. Failure to do so, or failure to cure the deficiencies addressed in this Order, will result in 11 dismissal of Plaintiffs claims with prejudice. Plaintiff may not add new claims or parties without 12 || leave of the Court or stipulation by the parties pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15. 5 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 Dated: October 28, 2021
EDWARD J. DAVILA 17 United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 || Case No.: 5:20-cv-06538-EJD ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS