599 F.Supp.3d 961
E.D. Cal.2022Background
- Plaintiff Raffi Kajberouni was a Police Officer I at the Bear Valley Police Department (BVPD) from Nov. 24, 2015 to May 15, 2019 and alleges BVPD and Bear Valley Community Services District (the District) required uncompensated pre- and post-shift work (e.g., donning uniform, equipping patrol vehicle) and interrupted/onsite meal and rest breaks during 12-hour shifts.
- Kajberouni alleges the District paid officers, managed the BVPD, and is a California public entity formed under the California Community Services Law.
- Claims in the First Amended Complaint: FLSA minimum and overtime violations; California meal- and rest-break violations (Cal. Lab. Code §§ 226.7, 512); unpaid wages on separation and waiting-time penalties (Cal. Lab. Code §§ 201–203); reimbursement for business expenses (Cal. Lab. Code § 2802); and Unfair Competition Law (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200).
- The District moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing (inter alia) that several Labor Code provisions and the UCL do not apply to public entities and that the § 2802 claim lacked sufficient factual allegations.
- The Court dismissed the meal/rest-break claims, the wages-on-separation/waiting-time claim, and the UCL claim without leave to amend; dismissed the § 2802 reimbursement claim with leave to amend; and concluded BVPD should not be a separately named defendant.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether BVPD may remain a separate defendant | BVPD and District both liable; BVPD referenced separately in pleading | BVPD is a department of the District and was erroneously named separately | BVPD dismissal as separate defendant appropriate (District is the proper defendant) |
| Applicability of Cal. Lab. Code §§ 226.7 and 512 (meal/rest breaks) | §§ 226.7 and 512 apply to District and support meal/rest claims | Public entities are not subject to these Labor Code provisions | Dismissed: public entity (District) not covered by §§ 226.7 and 512; claims 3 & 4 dismissed without leave to amend |
| Applicability of §§ 201–203 (wages on separation and waiting-time penalties) | §§ 201–203 apply because District is a joint/indirect employer | § 220(b) excludes municipal corporations/public entities from §§ 200–211; District is a municipal corporation | Dismissed: District is a municipal corporation; §§ 201–203 do not apply; claim 5 dismissed without leave to amend |
| Reimbursement under Cal. Lab. Code § 2802 | Officer purchased a tourniquet for duty belt and seeks reimbursement; alleges it was necessary | Complaint lacks facts showing purchase was at employer's direction, reasonably necessary, or that District knew/should have known | Dismissed but with leave to amend: factual pleading deficient; plaintiff may replead the § 2802 claim |
| UCL (§ 17200) claim based on alleged wage-and-hour violations | District engaged in unlawful business practices by violating FLSA/Labor Code; District is a “person” under related statutes | UCL’s definition of “person” excludes governmental entities; public entities are not subject to UCL | Dismissed: public entities are not “persons” under § 17200; UCL claim (claim 7) dismissed without leave to amend |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading must state a plausible claim to survive dismissal)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility standard for complaints)
- Johnson v. Arvin-Edison Water Storage Dist., 174 Cal. App. 4th 729 (2009) (public entities not subject to certain Labor Code wage-and-hour provisions)
- California Correctional Peace Officers Ass'n v. State of California, 188 Cal. App. 4th 646 (2010) (municipal/public entities not covered by §§ 512 and related meal/rest requirements)
- Pinder v. Employment Dep't, 227 F. Supp. 3d 1123 (E.D. Cal. 2017) (E.D. Cal. decision applying Johnson rationale to dismiss meal-period claims against a public employer)
- People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc. v. Cal. Milk Producers Advisory Bd., 125 Cal. App. 4th 871 (2005) (governmental entities excluded from UCL’s definition of “person”)
- Cel-Tech Communications, Inc. v. Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Co., 20 Cal. 4th 163 (1999) (UCL’s unlawful/unfair/fraudulent prongs are distinct)