223 Cal. App. 4th 466
Cal. Ct. App.2014Background
- Hawkins filed a putative class wage/hour action in June 2010 against Sereca Security Corp. (not a party here).
- The operative Seventh Cause of Action (Labor Code 2810) was added February 28, 2012 against TACA, LAN, and Volaris.
- The 2810 claim alleged contracts with Sereca lacking funds but failed to identify the contracts.
- Demurrers to the 2810 claim were sustained; Volaris’ demurrer was also sustained; a judgment of dismissal followed.
- Hawkins sought class certification in Oct. 2011; the court granted certification in Dec. 2011, but subsequent events included Sereca’s default and counsel changes.
- The court held the 2810 pleading insufficient, lacking facts showing knowledge of underfunding; liberal construction could not cure the gaps.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 2810 requires facts, not mere statutory language | Hawkins claims liberal pleading suffices | Airlines argue facts needed to show knowledge | Insufficient; facts required |
| Whether pre-suit discovery could supply contract details | Discovery before suit should be enough | Discovery should have occurred via formal means before suit | Pre-suit discovery insufficient; third-party discovery before filing possible |
| Whether liberal construction cures factual gaps | Rule of liberal construction should fill gaps | Gaps cannot be cured by liberal pleading in statutes | Liberal construction does not cure lack of factual pleading |
| Whether complaint adequately pleads knowledge of underfunding | Defendants knew contracts were underfunded | No allegations show their knowledge | Not pled with sufficient specificity |
| Standard of review for demurrer | De novo review; pleadings evaluated for sufficiency |
Key Cases Cited
- Carter v. Prime Healthcare Paradise Valley LLC, 198 Cal.App.4th 396 (Cal.App.2011) (pleading must plead facts, not mere conclusions, under statutory remedies)
- Rojas v. Brinderson Constructors, Inc., 567 F.Supp.2d 1205 (C.D. Cal. 2008) (need knowledge of underfunding; allegations cannot be speculative)
- Melton v. Boustred, 183 Cal.App.4th 521 (Cal.App. 2010) (claims must be particular when invoking statutory remedies)
- Lavine v. Jessup, 161 Cal.App.2d 59 (Cal.App.1958) (illustrative limits on broad pleading)