Stoddart v. Express Services, Inc.
2:12-cv-01054
E.D. Cal.Sep 16, 2015Background
- Plaintiff Michael Stoddart worked as a forklift driver (Apr 2007–May 2011) after being placed by Express Services (franchisor) and Phillips & Associates (franchisee) at Western Wine Services.
- Plaintiff filed a putative class action in state court alleging multiple California Labor Code and UCL violations; defendants removed under CAFA. Plaintiff later filed a first amended complaint asserting seven claims, including PAGA penalties.
- Defendants moved to dismiss and to strike portions of the first amended complaint; the court granted the motion to strike unopposed as to injunctive-relief references and ordered a second amended complaint.
- Defendants sought dismissal mainly arguing plaintiff failed to exhaust PAGA administrative notice requirements for several newly asserted theories (Labor Code § 558 and § 226 variants) and that PAGA penalties would duplicate statutory penalties.
- Court took judicial notice of plaintiff’s July 2011 and February 2012 letters to the LWDA and evaluated whether those letters provided adequate “facts and theories” under Cal. Lab. Code § 2699.3.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff exhausted PAGA notice for penalties under Lab. Code § 558 (based on §§ 510, 512 violations) | Stoddart argued his LWDA letters referenced §§ 510 and 512 and provided sufficient facts/theories, so § 558 penalties are covered | Defendants argued § 558-based penalties were not separately pleaded to LWDA and thus unexhausted | Denied as to § 558 predicated on §§ 510 and 512: July 2011 letter adequately described facts/theories for §§ 510 and 512, satisfying § 2699.3(a) |
| Whether plaintiff exhausted PAGA notice for wage-statement claim under § 226 as to inclusive pay-period dates | Stoddart argued the letters need not anticipate all future theories; existing notice sufficed | Defendants argued the LWDA letters did not mention missing inclusive pay-period dates, so that theory was unexhausted | Granted in part: claim based on missing inclusive dates is unexhausted and dismissed from PAGA relief |
| Whether plaintiff exhausted PAGA notice for (a) second meal-period violations and (b) overtime miscalculation based on bonuses (rate-of-pay theory) | Stoddart contended the meal-period and overtime theories were encompassed by the LWDA letters and defendants knew the theories from litigation/mediation | Defendants argued the LWDA letters referenced only first-meal/8-hour theories and made no mention of second meal periods or bonus-based regular-rate theories | Granted: PAGA claims premised on second meal periods and bonus-based overtime rate are unexhausted and barred |
| Whether PAGA civil penalties for § 226 violations are barred as duplicative of statutory penalties under § 226(e) | Stoddart argued statutory penalties under § 226(e) are distinct from PAGA civil penalties; PAGA does not preclude concurrent remedies | Defendants argued allowing both would produce impermissible double recovery | Denied: court held PAGA civil penalties and individual statutory penalties are distinct and recoverable concurrently under § 2699(g) |
| Whether defendants failed to meet-and-confer before filing motion and should be sanctioned | Stoddart said defendants did not engage in required pre-filing meet-and-confer | Defendants claimed they had communicated positions in prior filings and status statements | Court ordered defendants to show cause why they should not be sanctioned $250 for inadequate meet-and-confer |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility standard for pleading)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (Twombly pleading standard applied to antitrust and general pleading principles)
- Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696 (9th Cir. 1990) (failure to state a claim dismissal standard)
- Usher v. City of Los Angeles, 828 F.2d 556 (9th Cir. 1987) (courts draw inferences for nonmoving party on Rule 12(b)(6))
- Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265 (1986) (legal conclusions not assumed true on a motion to dismiss)
- Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors, 266 F.3d 979 (9th Cir. 2001) (limits on documents and matters considered on dismissal)
- Iskanian v. CLS Transp. Los Angeles, LLC, 59 Cal.4th 348 (2014) (PAGA preserves public enforcement role and allows private actions)
- Caliber Bodyworks, Inc. v. Superior Court, 134 Cal. App.4th 365 (2005) (purpose and structure of PAGA enforcement)