Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-01023/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-01023-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

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 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

MICHAEL BEST, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

CENTRAL TRANSPORT 

INTERNATIONAL, INC.; CENTRAL 

TRANSPORT LLC, 

Defendants. 

No. 2:16-cv-01023-KJM-KJN 

ORDER 

On April 7, 2016, plaintiff Michael Best filed a complaint in Sacramento County 

California Superior Court. Ex. A-Pl.’s Compl. (Compl.), ECF No. 1. On May 13, 2016, 

defendants Central Transport International, Inc. and Central Transport LLC (collectively, 

Defendants) removed the state action to this court. ECF No. 1. On June 3, 2016, Defendants 

filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint. Defs.’ Mot. to Dismiss (Defs.’ Mot.), ECF 

No. 6-1. On August 19, 2016, Plaintiff filed his opposition to Defendants’ motion. Pl.’s Opp’n 

to Defs.’ Mot to Dismiss (Pl.’s Opp’n), ECF No. 20. Defendants filed a reply to Plaintiff’s 

opposition on August 23, 2016. Defs.’ Reply, ECF No. 22. The court held a hearing on 

September 9, 2016 where Lawrence Freiman appeared for plaintiff and John Whitesides appeared 

for defendants. 

Case 2:16-cv-01023-KJM-KJN Document 27 Filed 10/05/16 Page 1 of 5
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 

2

I. ALLEGATIONS 

Plaintiff is a resident of California. Compl. ¶ 1. Defendant Central Transport 

International is incorporated in Michigan. Id. ¶ 2. Plaintiff alleges Defendants 

“discriminated/retaliated against” him “on the basis of action/perceived medical 

condition/disability.” Id. ¶ 7. Plaintiff also alleges Defendants generally failed to pay him wages 

and overtime for hours worked. Id. ¶¶ 10–15. Plaintiff alleges he received a “Right to Sue letter 

from the California Department of Fair Housing and Employment and has thus exhausted all 

necessary administrative remedies.” Id. ¶ 16. Plaintiff further alleges that as a result of 

Defendants’ conduct he has “suffered and continues to suffer” various losses and emotional 

distress. See, e.g., id. ¶¶ 19–20. Plaintiff alleges no other facts. 

Plaintiff advances the following eighteen claims: 

(1) Discrimination in Violation of the California Fair Employment 

and Housing Act (FEHA); (2) Failure to Prevent Discrimination in 

Violation of FEHA; (3) Failure to Engage in a Timely Good Faith 

Interactive Process in Violation of FEHA; (4) Failure to Provide 

Reasonable Accommodation in Violation of FEHA; (5) Retaliation 

in Violation of FEHA; (6) Violation of the California Family Rights 

Act (CFRA); (7) Failure to Pay overtime Compensation (Cal. Lab. 

Code §§ 510, 1194.2, 1197, 1198); (8) Failure to Pay Minimum 

Wage and Wages for All Hours Worked (Cal. Lab. Code §§ 1194, 

1197, 1197.2, 1198, 221, 222, 223); (9) Failure to Pay Timely 

Earned Wages (Cal. Lab. Code § 204); (10) Failure to Pay Timely 

Earned Wages upon Separation of Employment (Cal. Lab. Code 

§§ 201, 203); (11) Failure to Provide Accurate Wage Statements in 

Violation of Cal. Lab. Code § 226; (12) Unfair Competition (Cal. 

B&P Code § 17200 et seq.); (13) Wrongful 

Termination/Constructive Discharge in Violation of Public Policy; 

(14) Retaliation in Violation of Labor Code § 1102.5; (15) 

Violation of Family and Medical Leave Act; (16) Failure to Pay 

Minimum Wage in Violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act; (17) 

Failure to Pay Overtime in Violation of the Fair Labor Standards 

Act; and (18) Retaliation in Violation of the Fair Labor Standards 

Act. 

Id. at 1. 

II. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 

On April 7, 2016, Plaintiff filed his complaint in Sacramento County Superior 

Court. On May 13, 2016, Defendants removed the state action to this court. ECF No. 1. On 

June 3, 2016, Defendants filed the pending motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint under Federal 

Case 2:16-cv-01023-KJM-KJN Document 27 Filed 10/05/16 Page 2 of 5
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 

3

Rule of Civil Procedure (Rule) 12(b)(6) for failing to “state a legally cognizable claim against 

anyone for anything.” Defs.’ Mot. 2. Defendants alternatively move for a more definite 

statement under Rule 12(e). Id. at 1. On August 19, 2016, Plaintiff’s opposition to Defendants’ 

motion argues the complaint represents a short and plain statement of the claim and meets the 

federal pleading standard. See Pl.’s Opp’n 4–5. Defendants’ reply reiterates the arguments in 

their motion to dismiss. See generally Defs.’ Reply. 

III. LEGAL STANDARD 

A party may move to dismiss for “failure to state a claim upon which relief can be 

granted.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). The motion may be granted only if the complaint lacks a 

“cognizable legal theory” or if its factual allegations do not support a cognizable legal theory. 

Hartmann v. Cal. Dep’t of Corr. & Rehab., 707 F.3d 1114, 1122 (9th Cir. 2013). The court 

assumes these factual allegations are true and draws reasonable inferences from them. Ashcroft v. 

Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). 

A complaint need contain only a “short and plain statement of the claim showing 

that the pleader is entitled to relief,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), not “detailed factual allegations,” 

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). But this rule demands more than 

unadorned accusations; “sufficient factual matter” must make the claim at least plausible. Iqbal, 

556 U.S. at 678. In the same vein, conclusory or formulaic recitations of a cause’s elements do 

not alone suffice. Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). Evaluation under Rule 12(b)(6) is a 

context-specific task drawing on “judicial experience and common sense.” Id. at 679. 

IV. DISCUSSION 

Defendants argue Plaintiff’s complaint “consists of 99% legal conclusions and a 

few ancillary facts” and does not meet the standards set forth by the Supreme Court in Twombly

and Iqbal. Defs.’ Mot. 2. Plaintiff responds that “[s]pecific facts are not necessary; the statement 

need only give the defendant fair notice of what . . . the claim is and the grounds upon which it 

rests.” Pl.’s Opp’n 2 (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007)). 

///// 

///// 

Case 2:16-cv-01023-KJM-KJN Document 27 Filed 10/05/16 Page 3 of 5
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 

4

Though it can be inferred from his claims, Plaintiff never alleges he was employed 

by Defendants. Plaintiff’s pleadings also are insufficient to state a cognizable claim for the 

following reasons: 

(1) Plaintiff’s first, second, third, fourth, and fifth claims state in a conclusory 

manner that Defendants discriminated and/or retaliated against him, see, e.g., Compl. ¶ 7, but 

Plaintiff offers no facts explaining how or when this occurred. 

(2) Plaintiff’s sixth, fourteenth, fifteenth, and eighteenth claims allege Defendants’ 

actions constitute interference, restraint, discrimination, and/or retaliation, but the referenced 

actions remain a mystery. 

(3) Plaintiff’s seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth, sixteenth, and seventeenth claims allege 

Defendants failed to pay him wages, minimum wage, and/or overtime, but he fails to assert any 

facts that would indicate that he is entitled to additional wages and overtime. 

(4) Plaintiff’s eleventh claim alleges Defendants did not provide him with accurate 

wage statements, Compl. ¶ 63, but Plaintiff does not explain how he was harmed by this alleged 

violation. 

(5) Plaintiff’s twelfth claim states that Defendants failed to compensate Plaintiff 

“for missed meal and rest periods,” Compl. ¶ 66, but Plaintiff does not assert that he missed any 

meals or rest periods in a manner that would entitle him to relief. 

(6) Plaintiff’s thirteenth claim alleges he was wrongfully terminated, but he offers 

no facts explaining the circumstances of his termination. 

Therefore, Plaintiff has failed to meet his “burden of pleading sufficient factual 

matter [that if] accepted as true [would] ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’ ” 

Mujica v. AirScan Inc., 771 F.3d 580, 592 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678), 

cert. denied sub nom. Mujica v. Occidental Petroleum Corp., 136 S. Ct. 690 (2015). 

V. CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED with 

leave to amend within 14 days of the filing of this order because Defendants have not shown that 

///// 

Case 2:16-cv-01023-KJM-KJN Document 27 Filed 10/05/16 Page 4 of 5
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 

5

amendment would be futile. See Arizona Students’ Ass’n v. Arizona Bd. of Regents, 824 F.3d 

858, 871 (9th Cir. 2016). 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: October 5, 2016. 

Case 2:16-cv-01023-KJM-KJN Document 27 Filed 10/05/16 Page 5 of 5