JAIME GARCIA, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. PENSKE TRUCK LEASING CO., L.P.; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive
No. 2:24-cv-01881 WBS JDP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
October 3, 2024
Plaintiff Jaime Garcia (“Garcia” or “plaintiff“) originally filed this putative class action against defendant Penske Truck Leasing Co., L.P. (“defendant” or “Penske“) in Yolo County Superior Court, seeking monetary and equitable relief pursuant to the
I. Factual Background
Plaintiff is a California resident who worked for defendant in Yolo County “as a technician from approximately September 2022 to July 2023.” (Notice of Removal (Docket No. 1 Ex. A) (“Compl.“) ¶ 7.) Defendant is a transportation services company which is headquartered in Pennsylvania and incorporated in Delaware. (Notice of Removal (Docket No. 1) at 3-4.)
Garcia states that Penske violated various provisions of the
II. Motion to Remand
A. Standard
Pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA“), defendant removed the instant action from Yolo County Superior Court. (Notice of Removal at 2.) CAFA gives federal district courts original jurisdiction over class action lawsuits where the
When a party moves for remand to state court and challenges the non-movant‘s projected amount-in-controversy, both parties must proffer evidence on “whether the amount-in-controversy requirement has been satisfied.” Ibarra v. Manheim Invs., Inc., 775 F.3d 1193, 1197-98 (9th Cir. 2015). The burden of proof falls on the removing party to make reasonable assumptions and show that the amount-in-controversy exceeds $5 million by a preponderance of the evidence. Jaurengui v. Roadrunner Transp. Servs., Inc., 228 F.4th 989, 993-94 (9th Cir. 2022). The Ninth Circuit has characterized the amount-in-controversy requirement as an upper bound on “possible liability.” Greene v. Harley-Davidson, Inc., 965 F.3d 767 (9th Cir. 2020).
B. Discussion
Plaintiff contests that the amount-in-controversy is over $5 million, as required for removal under CAFA. The court disagrees and finds that defendant has shouldered its burden for removal. On behalf of himself and over 3,400 other people employed by defendant, plaintiff seeks multiple declarations, unpaid wages, statutory penalties, actual damages, a receivership to preside over the disgorgement of defendant, punitive damages, attorney‘s fees, and injunctive relief. With respect to each of the overtime and wage statement claims, defendant estimates that plaintiff‘s desired remedies places the amount-in-controversy
Plaintiff, in contrast, offers no competing facts bearing on the amount-in-controversy. Instead, plaintiff only asserts that defendant‘s analysis is flawed without providing contrary evidence. The court concludes that it is more likely than not that the CAFA‘s amount-in-controversy requirement is met.
For the foregoing reason, the court will retain jurisdiction over the matter under CAFA and deny Garcia‘s motion to remand.
III. Motion to Dismiss
A. Standard
Dismissal is proper where a complaint fails to allege “sufficient facts . . . to support a cognizable legal theory.” Id. As such, the plaintiff must state “a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw
B. Discussion
The Ninth Circuit has held that a plaintiff seeking redress for violation of minimum or overtime wage laws must specify at least one workweek by date where the employer underpaid him or her. See Landers v. Quality Commc‘ns, Inc., 771 F.3d 638, 644-45 (9th Cir. 2014), amended, (Jan. 26, 2015). The same applies to a claim seeking minimum wages. Id. at 645 & n.2.1
In his first and second claims, Garcia alleges that Penske failed to pay him minimum wages and overtime compensation. (Compl. ¶¶ 15, 32, 43-44.) California law requires that an employer pay an employee at least minimum wage for the first eight hours of his or her workday and then 150% of that hourly
Plaintiff argues that the defendant “required [him] to work off the clock[] and uncompensated” by undertaking tasks such as cleaning and preparing trucks during his free time. (Compl. ¶ 15.) However, Garcia does not meet the threshold of showing the court that his first and second claims are plausible. Plaintiff does not specify any specific period of time where Penske neglected to pay him his due. See Ritenour, 228 F. Supp. 3d at 1033-34. Such defects are fatal to plaintiff‘s first and second claims, which do not state sufficient facts to survive dismissal.
With respect to his third and fourth claims, Garcia avers that Penske neglected to provide him with sufficient meal periods and rest breaks. (Compl. ¶¶ 16-17, 51, 55.) California law prohibits an employer from asking its employee to work “during a meal or rest or recovery period mandated pursuant to an applicable statute.”
Plaintiff states that defendant made him work when he was supposed to be taking a meal or rest break. (Compl. ¶¶ 16-17, 51, 55.) On either claim, Garcia does not go farther than asserting that Penske denied him meal or rest breaks. Plaintiff does not even specify a single workweek where that occurred. He may not proceed to discovery on the third and fourth claims without details in that vein. See Shann, 182 F. Supp. 3d 1044 at 1048-49. Accordingly, Garcia does not state a claim upon which relief may be granted regarding meal periods or rest breaks.
Regarding his fifth claim, plaintiff claims that
In particular, Penske “required [Garcia] to purchase masks, tools, and equipment (such as basic tools, pliers, clamps, cocking guns, drills, and other tools).” (Compl. ¶ 18.) Plaintiff adds that Penske “required [him] to use [his] personal cellular telephones for work purposes, without reimbursement.” (Id.)
Defendant contends that plaintiff must provide even more facts, such as whether Penske would in fact reimburse the expenses Garcia lists, to cross the threshold of plausibility. See Ritenour, 228 F. Supp. 3d at 1033-34 (dismissing claim for failure to reimburse business expenses due to plaintiff not specifying when plaintiff incurred such costs).
The issue with Penske‘s suggestion is that it would require bloating the Complaint with minutia. In contrast to the first four claims, Garcia provides sufficient detail here as opposed to just reciting the statutory language. See Shann, 182 F. Supp. 3d at 1005-06. Accordingly, Garcia states a plausible claim upon which relief may be granted on this claim.
In his sixth claim, Garcia alleges that Penske “willfully failed and refused to timely pay [him]” following the end of his employment with the company. (Compl. ¶ 19.) California law requires that employers give an employee his or
In that vein, Plaintiff explains that he stopped working for defendant in July 2023, after which he did not receive his final paycheck in a timely manner. (Compl. ¶¶ 7, 14, 19.) With that detail and the other allegations in the complaint, Garcia pleads sufficient facts to survive Penske‘s motion to dismiss on his sixth claim.
Plaintiff‘s seventh claim is that defendant failed to provide him with accurate itemized wage statements. (Id. ¶¶ 15, 20, 70.) California law mandates that an employer “furnish to their employee . . . an accurate itemized statement” of wages earned.
Here, Garcia alleges that Penske neglected to give him itemized wage statements with the requisite intent. See
Garcia‘s eighth claim seeks relief under the UCL, which
Because plaintiff pleads sufficient facts in the Complaint to survive Penske‘s motion to dismiss on the fifth, sixth, and seventh claims, his eighth claim under the “unlawful” prong of the UCL may utilize the violations alleged in those three claims as predicates. See id. at 1553-54. To the extent it does so, Garcia‘s eighth claim states a claim upon which relief may be granted.
Penske concludes by moving to dismiss Garcia‘s class claims. (Def.‘s Mot. (Docket No. 4) at 21-24 (citing
For all the foregoing reasons, the court will dismiss only the first, second, third, and fourth claims against defendant.
C. Leave to Amend
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff‘s motion to remand the case to state court (Docket No. 10) be, and the same herby is, DENIED;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant‘s motion to dismiss plaintiff‘s first, second, third, and fourth claims against it (Docket No. 4), be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED;
AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant‘s motion to dismiss plaintiff‘s fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth claims against it be, and the same hereby is, DENIED.
Plaintiff is granted twenty days from the date of this Order to file an amended complaint if he can do so consistent with this Order.
Dated: October 3, 2024
WILLIAM B. SHUBB
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Notes
In Landers, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a complaint alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act,