Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_10-cv-01070/USCOURTS-cand-5_10-cv-01070-16/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Labor/Mgmnt. Relations

---

Case No.: 5:10-cv-01070-EJD

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

MAY MOUA,

Plaintiff,

v.

INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS 

MACHINES CORPORATION, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 5:10-cv-01070-EJD 

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE 

PLEADINGS AS TO PLAINTIFF’S 

CLAIMS ON BEHALF OF PAGA 

MEMBERS JASON DRURY AND 

XIANZHAN LIN

Re: Dkt. No. 132

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c), Defendants International Business 

Machines Corporation (“IBM”), Joseph Koenig, and Venkatasubramaniam Iyer (collectively, 

“Defendants”) move to dismiss without leave to amend Plaintiff May Moua’s representative 

claims under California’s Private Attorney General Act (“PAGA”) on behalf of Jason Drury 

(“Drury”) and Xianzhan Lin (“Lin”), two nonexempt employees of IBM. Dkt. No. 132. For the 

reasons set forth below, Defendants’ motion will be denied.

I. BACKGROUND

In her 2010 Complaint, Plaintiff May Moua (“Plaintiff”) alleges that she and other 

employees were misclassified as exempt from overtime and related pay requirements under 

California Law. Dkt. No. 1. Plaintiff’s amended complaints also assert claims based on a 

misclassification theory. Dkt. Nos. 45, 66. In the operative Second Amended Complaint

(“SAC”), Plaintiff asserts misclassification claims on behalf of herself and 25 others under PAGA. 

Dkt. No. 6. 

Case 5:10-cv-01070-EJD Document 261 Filed 02/26/19 Page 1 of 3
Case No.: 5:10-cv-01070-EJD

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

During discovery Plaintiff learned that two PAGA members—Drury and Lin—had been 

reclassified to nonexempt status prior to the start of the relevant time period. Dkt. No. 94 at 11. 

Defendants seek dismissal of claims on behalf of Drury and Lin because the SAC alleges no facts 

regarding nonexempt employees. 

II. DISCUSSION

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) allows a party to move for judgment on the 

pleadings “[a]fter the pleadings are closed—but early enough not to delay trial.” Judgment on the 

pleadings is proper when “‘there is no issue of material fact in dispute, and the moving party is 

entitled to judgment as a matter of law.’” Chavez v. United States, 683 F.3d 1102, 1108 (9th Cir. 

2012) (quoting Fleming v. Pickard, 581 F.3d 922, 925 (9th Cir. 2009)).

The standard for a Rule 12(c) motion is essentially the same as that for a Rule 12(b)(6) 

motion. Id. Thus, a court must presume all facts alleged in the complaint are true and determine 

whether the complaint demonstrates a plausible entitlement to a legal remedy. See Bell Atl. Corp. 

v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-57 (2007) (discussing the standard for dismissal under Rule 

12(b)(6)). 

Here, it is undisputed that Drury and Lin were classified as nonexempt employees since 

December 9, 2008. Dkt. No. 143 at 4-6. Nevertheless, Plaintiff contends that Defendants violated 

Drury’s and Lin’s rights even after their reclassification; that the SAC, which incorporates 

Plaintiff’s notice to the Labor Workforce & Development Agency (“LWDA”), provides 

Defendants with sufficient notice of their claims; and that she may maintain PAGA claims on 

Drury’s and Lin’s behalf even though her claims are based upon her exempt status and Drury and 

Lin have nonexempt status. Dkt. No. 143. Should the court determine that the SAC does not 

provide fair notice, Plaintiff requests leave to amend the LWDA notice and the SAC.

This court has already ruled that Plaintiff’s SAC and the LWDA notice are adequate to 

state a claim as to Drury and Lin. Dkt. No. 64 at 7:1-14 (Order Granting Motion For Leave to File 

Second Amended Complaint). With the benefit of hindsight, the court recognizes that the 

allegations are thin: Plaintiff seeks to represent “employees on ‘claims that IBM violated various 

Case 5:10-cv-01070-EJD Document 261 Filed 02/26/19 Page 2 of 3
Case No.: 5:10-cv-01070-EJD

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

provisions of the California Labor Code as related to [Jason Drury and Xianzhan Lin.]’” Dkt. No. 

143 at 13-14. Nevertheless, the SAC satisfies Rule 8 and at this stage in the proceedings, it is 

preferable for efficiency’s sake to move past the pleading stage and focus instead on the merits of 

any potential claim for relief Drury and Lin may have now that the evidence shows they are 

nonexempt employees. 

III. ORDER

For the reasons set forth above, Defendants’ motion (Dkt. No. 132) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 26, 2019

______________________________________

EDWARD J. DAVILA

United States District Judge

Case 5:10-cv-01070-EJD Document 261 Filed 02/26/19 Page 3 of 3