Monzon v. County of San Diego
689 F.Supp.3d 848
S.D. Cal.2023Background
- Plaintiffs Karen Monzon and Andrea Zarattini are employees in San Diego County’s Department of Public Works who sued on behalf of themselves and similarly situated employees, alleging unpaid overtime, off‑the‑clock work, and inaccurate time records.
- Complaint asserted federal FLSA claims and multiple California Labor Code claims (minimum wage, overtime, wage statements, wages at separation); case removed to federal court by County.
- County moved to dismiss primarily arguing plaintiffs failed to allege compliance with the California Government Claims Act (GCA) and County Administrative Code claim‑presentation procedures; it also challenged pleading sufficiency under Landers and argued some Labor Code provisions do not apply to the County.
- Plaintiffs submitted declarations/exhibits in opposition (a July 2022 “Labor Compliance Report” and Notices of Claim served March 30, 2023) asserting they satisfied the presentation requirement.
- The Court found the complaint contains no factual allegations showing timely compliance with the GCA/Admin Code, rejected the post‑filing Notices of Claim as insufficient, concluded the FLSA allegations were too generalized under Landers, and held several state‑law Labor Code claims cannot be maintained against the County.
- The Court granted the motion to dismiss in full, without prejudice, and gave plaintiffs 14 days to amend.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Compliance with Government Claims Act / County claim‑presentation rules | Plaintiffs had provided notice: Monzon’s July 27, 2022 Labor Compliance Report and Notices of Claim served March 30, 2023 satisfy presentation requirement | Complaint lacks allegations of timely, proper claims presentation; exhibits in opposition cannot cure pleading and Notices were served after suit filed | Dismissed without prejudice for failure to plead compliance; opposition exhibits insufficient and post‑lawsuit claim untimely |
| FLSA / pleading sufficiency under Landers (overtime allegations) | Allegations that overtime approval was regularly denied and employees were required to work off‑the‑clock render claim plausible | Allegations are generalized, conclusory, and fail to identify any workweeks or concrete facts to make overtime denial plausible | Dismissed without prejudice; pleadings fail Landers standard and may be amended with greater detail |
| Applicability of Cal. Labor Code §§ 510, 226, 201–203 to County | Plaintiffs reserve possibility of unknown joint employers; thus claims should remain for discovery | County is a public entity and those Labor Code provisions do not apply to it | Claims under those Labor Code sections dismissed as to the County (cannot be sustained against County) |
| Claims against Doe defendants / joint‑employer theory | Plaintiffs may discover and sue joint employers later | Causes cannot rest solely on generic Doe allegations; pleading is insufficient | Claims against Does dismissed without prejudice; plaintiffs may amend if they can identify viable non‑public employers |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (Rule 8 plausibility standard)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (legal conclusions not entitled to assumption of truth)
- Landers v. Quality Commc’ns, Inc., 771 F.3d 638 (9th Cir. 2014) (pleading standard for FLSA overtime claims)
- Pruell v. Caritas Christi, 678 F.3d 10 (1st Cir. 2012) (generalized overtime allegations insufficient)
- Lundy v. Catholic Health Sys. of Long Island Inc., 711 F.3d 106 (2d Cir. 2013) (need for factual detail about overtime weeks)
- Nakahata v. New York–Presbyterian Healthcare Sys., 723 F.3d 192 (2d Cir. 2013) (insufficient to allege uncompensated categories of work without workweek context)
- Dejesus v. HF Mgmt. Servs., LLC, 726 F.3d 85 (2d Cir. 2013) (complaint must plausibly allege overtime in a given workweek)
- Stoetzl v. Dep’t of Human Resources, 7 Cal.5th 718 (Cal. 2019) (Labor Code generally applies to private sector unless made applicable to public employees)
- Stockett v. Ass’n of Cal. Water Agencies Jt. Powers Ins. Auth., 34 Cal.4th 441 (Cal. 2004) (purpose of GCA claim presentation requirement)
- State of California v. Superior Court, 32 Cal.4th 1234 (Cal. 2004) (complaint must allege facts demonstrating or excusing compliance with GCA)