Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-04795/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-04795-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 29:201 Fair Labor Standards Act

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NATE BOOKER and ALBERT JOHNSON, on

behalf of themselves and those

similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

v.

GLOTEL, INC.; LES CLARK; ANDY BAKER;

and DOES 1 through 500,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 05-4795 CW

ORDER GRANTING IN

PART DEFENDANT

GLOTEL'S MOTION

TO SEVER, TO

TRANSFER VENUE

AND TO STRIKE AND

GRANTING

PLAINTIFFS'

MOTION FOR LEAVE

TO FILE SECOND

AMENDED COMPLAINT

Defendant Glotel, Inc. has filed a motion to sever Plaintiff

Albert Johnson's Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) claim from this

action, to transfer venue as to Johnson's FLSA claim and to strike

portions of Plaintiffs' first amended complaint. Plaintiffs oppose

this motion and move for leave to file a second amended complaint. 

These matters were heard on March 24, 2006. Having considered all

of the papers filed by the parties and oral argument on the

motions, the Court grants Defendant Glotel's motion in part and

Case 4:05-cv-04795-CW Document 28 Filed 03/28/06 Page 1 of 11
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

1Plaintiffs state that they only agreed to dismiss the

individual defendants from this action because those defendants had

insufficient contacts with California and that they did not concede

lack of personal jurisdiction over the individual defendants in any

other jurisdiction. Further, these defendants have not been timely

served. Accordingly, the Court will dismiss all claims against

them without prejudice. 

2

grants Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a second amended

complaint.

BACKGROUND

On November 22, 2005, Plaintiffs filed a class action/

collective action against Defendant Glotel and two individual

defendants. Plaintiffs have agreed to dismiss the individual

defendants, Glotel executives, from this action.1 Plaintiffs

alleged violations of both federal and State wage and hour law. 

Specifically, Plaintiffs alleged that Defendant Glotel failed to

pay overtime compensation, provide adequate meal periods, furnish

accurate wage statements and keep accurate payroll records. 

Plaintiffs further alleged that Defendant Glotel engaged in unfair

business practices. A couple weeks after filing their complaint,

Plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint, adding a new cause of

action for failure to provide rest periods. 

The first amended complaint provides as follows. Plaintiff

Nate Booker is a resident of Stockton, California, and was employed

by Defendant Glotel as a cell site surveyor. He worked for

Defendant Glotel in Concord, California, and the Sacramento area of

California, as well as in Reno, Nevada. He brings his claims on

behalf of himself and:

All persons who are employed or have been employed by

Glotel in California as non-exempt electronic technical

Case 4:05-cv-04795-CW Document 28 Filed 03/28/06 Page 2 of 11
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

support personnel, including technical services

supporters, field technicians, cell site surveyors and

others, who are/were provided to Glotel's

telecommunications clients to assist in the survey, deinstallation, installation, upgrading, servicing and

repair of such clients' facilities, cell sites and/or

equipment (the "California Plaintiff Class").

FAC ¶ 40.

 Plaintiff Johnson is a resident of Texas. He worked for

Defendant Glotel in Irving, Texas, performing technical field

support. According to the first amended to complaint, 

numerous current and former employees who worked for

Glotel outside California in the United States and its

possessions are similarly situated to plaintiff Johnson

(the "FLSA Collective Plaintiffs") with regard to their

wages and claims for unpaid wages and damages, in that

they have been denied proper overtime compensation for at

least three (3) years prior to the filing of this

complaint.

FAC ¶ 39.

In response to Defendant Glotel's motion to sever, to transfer

and to strike, Plaintiffs have moved for leave to file a second

amended complaint. This complaint seeks to add another FLSA

collective action plaintiff, Kelvin DuBose, who worked for

Defendant Glotel in Chicago, where Glotel's United States

headquarters are located. In addition, the second amended

complaint makes clear that Plaintiffs' FLSA claim is brought by all

Plaintiffs, not only Plaintiff Johnson:

This action is maintainable as an "opt-in" collective

action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) as to claims for

overtime compensation, liquidated damages (or,

alternatively, interest), and attorneys' fees under the

FLSA. In addition to the named plaintiffs, numerous

current and former employees who worked for Glotel outside

California in the United States and its possessions are

similarly situated to the named plaintiffs (the "FLSA

Collective Plaintiffs") with regard to their wages and

claims for unpaid wages and damages, in that they have

Case 4:05-cv-04795-CW Document 28 Filed 03/28/06 Page 3 of 11
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

been denied proper overtime compensation for at least

three (3) years prior to the filing of this complaint. 

Plaintiffs Booker, Johnson and DuBose are representatives

of those other current and former employees and are acting

on behalf of their interests as well as their own

interests in bringing this action.

Nebel Dec., Ex. A ¶ 40.

LEGAL STANDARD

I. Leave to Amend

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) provides that leave of

the court allowing a party to amend its pleading "shall be freely

given when justice so requires." Leave to amend lies within the

sound discretion of the trial court, which discretion "must be

guided by the underlying purpose of Rule 15 to facilitate decision

on the merits, rather than on the pleadings or technicalities." 

United States v. Webb, 655 F.2d 977, 979 (9th Cir. 1981) (citations

omitted). 

II. Transfer of Venue

Title 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) provides as follows: "For the

convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a

district court may transfer any civil action to any other district

or division where it might have been brought." The statute,

therefore, identifies three basic factors for district courts to

consider in determining whether a case should be transferred: 

(1) convenience of the parties; (2) convenience of the witnesses;

and (3) the interests of justice. 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). The Ninth

Circuit has held that a fourth factor for the court to consider is

the plaintiff's choice of forum. See Securities Investor

Protection Corp. v. Vigman, 764 F.2d 1309, 1317 (9th Cir. 1985). 

Case 4:05-cv-04795-CW Document 28 Filed 03/28/06 Page 4 of 11
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

The Securities Investor court held that, unless the balance of the

§ 1404(a) factors "is strongly in favor of the defendants, the

plaintiff's choice of forum should rarely be disturbed." Id.; see

also Decker Coal Co. v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 805 F.2d 834, 843

(9th Cir. 1986) ("defendant must make a strong showing . . . to

warrant upsetting the plaintiff's choice of forum"). The burden is

on the defendant to show that the convenience of parties and

witnesses and the interest of justice require transfer to another

district. See Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. Savage, 611 F.2d

270, 279 (9th Cir. 1979). 

III. Motion to Strike

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f), the Court

may strike from a pleading “any insufficient defense or any

redundant, immaterial, impertinent or scandalous matter.” The

purpose of a Rule 12(f) motion is to avoid spending time and money

litigating spurious issues. See Fantasy, Inc. v. Fogerty, 984 F.2d

1524, 1527 (9th Cir. 1993), rev'd on other grounds, 510 U.S. 517

(1994). Matter is immaterial if it has no essential or important

relationship to the claim for relief pleaded. See Fogerty, 984

F.2d at 1527. Matter is impertinent if it does not pertain and is

not necessary to the issues in question in the case. See id. 

DISCUSSION

I. Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint

Before addressing Defendant Glotel's motion, the Court will

address Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a second amended

complaint, which, as Defendant Glotel notes, attempts to moot its

motion. Defendant Glotel argues that the Court should disregard

Case 4:05-cv-04795-CW Document 28 Filed 03/28/06 Page 5 of 11
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2In their notice of motion and cross-motion, Plaintiffs

request that, if the Court determines that the notice for their

cross-motion is inadequate, their motion for leave to file a second

amended complaint be heard on April 14, 2006.

6

Plaintiffs' motion. Plaintiffs noticed their motion only twentyone days before the hearing on the present motion, not the thirtyfive days required by Local Rule 7-2.2 Thus, Defendant Glotel

contends that the only operative pleading properly before this

Court is Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint. 

Local Rule 7-2, however, recognizes exceptions to the general

rule that "all motions must be filed, served and noticed in writing

on the motion calendar of the assigned Judge for hearing not less

than 35 days after service of the motion." One of these exceptions

is if otherwise "ordered or permitted by the assigned Judge." 

Here, the Court will consider Plaintiffs' motion, even though

Plaintiffs have not filed a motion to shorten time and the motion

was not noticed thirty-five days before the hearing. To do

otherwise would be a waste of judicial resources, and the resources

of the parties.

As noted above, Rule 15 requires that leave of the court

allowing a party to amend its pleading "be freely given when

justice so requires." Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). Rule 15's policy of

favoring amendments to pleadings should be applied with "extreme

liberality." Webb, 655 F.2d at 979; DCD Programs, Ltd. v.

Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 186 (9th Cir. 1987) (citations omitted). 

 As Plaintiffs note, because Rule 15 favors a liberal policy

towards amendment, the non-moving party bears the burden of

demonstrating why leave to amend should be not granted. See, e.g.,

Case 4:05-cv-04795-CW Document 28 Filed 03/28/06 Page 6 of 11
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 7

DCD Programs, 833 F.2d at 186; Genentech, Inc. v. Abbott Lab., 127

F.R.D. 529, 530-31 (N.D. Cal. 1989). The Supreme Court has

identified four factors relevant to whether a motion for leave to

amend should be denied: undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive,

futility of amendment, and prejudice to the opposing party. Foman

v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). Defendant Glotel does not

argue that any of those four factors are present. As noted above,

Defendant Glotel states that Plaintiffs moved to amend their

complaint in an attempt to moot its motion, but that is not

evidence of bad faith or dilatory motive. Indeed, given the early

stage of this litigation, prejudice or undue delay would be

difficult to establish. Prejudice typically arises where the

opposing party is surprised with new allegations which require more

discovery or will otherwise delay resolution of the case. See,

e.g., Acri v. Int'l Ass'n of Machinists & Aerospace Workers, 781

F.2d 1393, 1398-99 (9th Cir. 1986). Here, as Plaintiffs note, the

original and proposed amended pleading share a common core of

operative facts, and discovery has not yet begun.

The Court grants Plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint.

II. Motion to Sever and Transfer Plaintiff Johnson's FLSA claim

Defendant Glotel argues that, because Plaintiff Johnson is the

only named plaintiff who asserts a FLSA claim, the Court should

sever Plaintiff Johnson's FLSA claim and transfer it to Texas. As

noted above, however, the second amended complaint makes clear that

all three Plaintiffs are bringing a FLSA claim, not only Plaintiff

Johnson. Plaintiffs note that severance of Plaintiff Johnson's

FLSA claim from Plaintiff Booker's FLSA claim would result in the

Case 4:05-cv-04795-CW Document 28 Filed 03/28/06 Page 7 of 11
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 8

maintenance of two nearly identical actions under the FLSA. 

Defendant Glotel does not provide the Court with sufficient

cause to sever Plaintiff Johnson's FLSA claim. Severance of a

claim may be ordered to prevent delay or prejudice. Coleman v.

Quaker Oats, Co., 232 F.3d 1271, 1296 (9th Cir. 2000). But, here,

Defendant Glotel presents no evidence of how it will be prejudiced,

or the case delayed, if Plaintiff Johnson's FLSA claim is not

severed from the other claims in this action. Defendant Glotel

describes the differences between Plaintiff Booker's claims brought

under the California Labor Code and the claim brought under the

FLSA; those differences, however, do not show that prejudice to

Defendant Glotel is "virtually assured." 

Defendant Glotel also produces no evidence to support its

contention that the factor of the convenience of witnesses,

judicial economy, access to proof and availability of the

compulsory process all weigh in favor of litigating Plaintiff

Johnson's claim in Texas. The Ninth Circuit instructs, "The

defendant must make a strong showing of inconvenience to warrant

upsetting the plaintiff's choice of forum." Decker Coal, 805 F.2d

at 843. Defendant Glotel makes no such showing. As Plaintiffs

note, there has been no discovery as to where the largest segment

of the putative class worked or other relevant issues, such as the

location of key witnesses and documents. 

The Court denies without prejudice Defendant Glotel's motion

to sever Plaintiff Johnson's FLSA claim and transfer it to Texas. 

III. Motion to Strike

Defendant Glotel moves to strike Plaintiffs' references to

Case 4:05-cv-04795-CW Document 28 Filed 03/28/06 Page 8 of 11
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 9

California Labor Code § 1994 and California Code of Civil Procedure

§ 382. Plaintiffs acknowledge that the reference to § 1994 is a

typographical error; the pleading should have stated Labor Code

§ 1194. Plaintiffs state that the reference to § 382 was

inadvertently not removed from the pleading; the reference should

be to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. Plaintiffs have fixed

these errors in their second amended complaint, and Defendant

Glotel's motion to strike §§ 1994 and 382 from the first amended

complaint is denied as moot. 

Defendant Glotel further moves to strike Plaintiff Booker's

claims for penalties, attorneys' fees and costs under Labor Code

§ 558. Motions to strike are generally not granted unless it is

clear that the matter to be stricken could have no possible bearing

on the subject matter of the litigation. LeDuc v. Kentucky Cent.

Life Ins. Co., 814 F. Supp. 820, 830 (N.D. Cal. 1992). Here, it is

clear that, although § 558 provides civil penalties for underpaid

wages, it does not provide recovery of attorneys' fees and costs. 

But it is not clear whether Plaintiffs can recover penalties under

§ 558 based on their claims under Labor Code § 226.7 for failure to

provide adequate meal and rest periods. Defendant Glotel cites two

cases holding that payments pursuant to § 226.7 are penalties, not

unpaid wages. See Caliber Bodyworks v. Superior Court, 134 Cal.

App. 4th 365 (2005); Murphy v. Kenneth Cole Productions, Inc., 134

Cal. App. 4th 728 (2005). As Plaintiffs note, however, the

California Supreme Court has granted review in Murphy; one of the

issues on review is whether a claim under § 226.7 results in a

payment of unpaid wages or a payment of penalties. Plaintiffs

Case 4:05-cv-04795-CW Document 28 Filed 03/28/06 Page 9 of 11
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 10

further note that one court found that payments under § 226.7 are

considered "wages," and not penalties. See National Steel and

Shipbuilding Co. v. Superior Court, 135 Cal. App. 4th 1072 (2006). 

And, while it seems that Plaintiffs cannot recover civil penalties

because they have failed to exhaust their administrative remedies,

it is not clear that their request for penalties under § 558 will

have no possible bearing on the subject matter of the litigation. 

See Caliber Bodyworks, 134 Cal. App. 4th at 383 (finding that

plaintiffs who failed to plead compliance with the pre-filing

notice and exhaustion requirements in Labor Code § 2699.3(a) are

not entitled to pursue their causes of action seeking civil

penalties). Plaintiffs contend that § 2699.3 allows a claimant to

amend, as a matter of right, an existing complaint to add a cause

of action under § 558, a contention Defendant Glotel does not

address.

Because Plaintiffs' request for attorneys' fees and costs

under § 558 will have no possible bearing on the subject matter of

this action, the Court will strike that request. The Court,

however, will not at this time strike Plaintiffs' request for civil

penalties under § 558.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs' motion

for leave to file their second amended complaint (Docket No. 18). 

Plaintiffs must file their second amended complaint by April 3,

2006. Defendant Glotel may stand on its prior answer or respond in

accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court

DENIES Defendant Glotel's motion to sever and to transfer venue and

Case 4:05-cv-04795-CW Document 28 Filed 03/28/06 Page 10 of 11
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 11

DENIES in part its motion to strike portions of Plaintiffs'

complaint and GRANTS it in part (Docket No. 9). The Court strikes

Plaintiffs' request for attorneys' fees and costs under § 558, but

does not strike Plaintiffs' request for civil penalties. Defendant

Glotel's request that the Court strike references to Labor Code

§ 1994 and Code of Civil Procedure § 382 is DENIED as moot. 

Plaintiffs' claims against individual Defendants Les Clark and Andy

Baker are dismissed without prejudice for failure to serve.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 3/28/06 

CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

Case 4:05-cv-04795-CW Document 28 Filed 03/28/06 Page 11 of 11