Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-01568/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-01568-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal - Employment Discrimination

---

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

JAMES A. MURPHY,

Plaintiff,

 v.

J. B. HUNT TRANSPORT SERVICES, INC.,

and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,

Defendants. /

No. CV 10-01568 WHA

ORDER DENYING

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO

DISMISS AND VACATING

HEARING

INTRODUCTION

Defendant J. B. Hunt Transport Services, Inc., moves pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(6) to

dismiss the fourth claim made against it by plaintiff James A. Murphy. The fourth claim involves

the nonpayment of wages for regular meal and rest periods to which plaintiff asserts an

entitlement upon termination. Defendant seeks to dismiss the claim because it would be

duplicative of a stayed class action suit brought against it in the Central District of California. 

This order holds that plaintiff’s claim would not be duplicative of the class action suit, because

plaintiff has promised to opt out of that suit when permitted to do so. For the reasons stated

below, defendant’s motion to dismiss is DENIED. 

STATEMENT

Plaintiff James A. Murphy alleges that he was an employee of J. B. Hunt Transport

Services Inc. until March 2009, when he was terminated. In state court plaintiff sued for

Case 3:10-cv-01568-WHA Document 24 Filed 05/25/10 Page 1 of 3
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 2

discrimination on the basis of his actual or perceived disability and for compensation for his

regular meal and rest periods. Defendant removed the action. Plaintiff’s fourth claim charges

that defendant failed to provide him with the required rest and meal periods in violation of the

California Labor Code and failed to adequately compensate him for any owed payments upon his

termination. 

Ortega v. J. B. Hunt Transport, Inc., Case No. 2:07-cv-08336 FMC-JCx, is pending as a

certified class action suit in the Central District of California. Claims against the same defendant

are based on violations of the California Labor Code pertaining to the provision and lack of

compensation for meal and rest periods. Before notice was given to class members, the

proceedings were stayed to wait for the California Supreme Court’s decision on Brinker

Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court, 196 P.3d 216 (Oct. 22, 2008).

Defendant moves to dismiss the fourth claim or alternatively seeks to stay this case

pending the resolution of the Ortega case. Both parties recognize that plaintiff will qualify as a

member of the class in the Ortega suit but has yet to be given notice of this status. Plaintiff has

brought the meal and rest claims in conjunction with claims of employment disability

discrimination. In contention, defendant asserts that plaintiff’s fourth claim is duplicative of

those brought by the Ortega class representatives and that hearing it would be a waste of judicial

resources. Furthermore, defendant asserts that plaintiff’s awareness of the Ortega suit and his

qualification as a class member binds him to the Ortega class until he is given the legal

opportunity to opt out. On May 18, 2010,however, plaintiff submitted a sworn declaration herein

certifying that he will opt out of the Ortega class action suit as soon as given the opportunity. 

ANALYSIS

Because plaintiff will opt out of Ortega, there is no point in a dismissal or a stay. Plaintiff

will not be bound by the judgment there. Plus, there are other claims here that have nothing to do

with Ortega. Plaintiff has an individual case, and is not proposing any kind of class competition

with Ortega. It is time to get our own case moving. There is no occasion for delay. 

Case 3:10-cv-01568-WHA Document 24 Filed 05/25/10 Page 2 of 3
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

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, defendant’s motion to dismiss the fourth claim is DENIED. The

hearing on the motion is VACATED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: May 25, 2010. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:10-cv-01568-WHA Document 24 Filed 05/25/10 Page 3 of 3