Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-03613/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-03613-1/pdf.json

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

---

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

MANUEL FLORES and ALEJANDRO SICAJAU,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

EI MAINTENANCE COMPANY and KEN IRWIN,

Defendants. /

No. C 09-3613 CW

ORDER GRANTING IN

PART AND DENYING IN

PART DEFENDANTS’

MOTION TO DISMISS

AND ALTERNATIVE

MOTION TO STRIKE

(Docket No. 18)

Defendants EI Maintenance Company and Ken Irwin move to

dismiss or, in the alternative, to strike claims asserted by

Plaintiffs Manuel Flores and Alejandro Sicajau. Defendants also

move for a more definite statement. Plaintiffs oppose the motion. 

The motion was taken under submission on the papers. Having

considered all the papers submitted by the parties, the Court

GRANTS in part Defendants’ motion to dismiss and alternative motion

to strike, and DENIES them in part. The Court stays all

proceedings as to Defendant Ken Irwin because of his ongoing

bankruptcy case. 

BACKGROUND

 Plaintiffs allege that, for some period of time over the past

four years, they worked for Defendant EI Maintenance Company, a

“construction clean-up company” based in Foster City, California. 

First Am. Compl. (FAC) ¶ 7. They claim that they worked regularly

Case 4:09-cv-03613-CW Document 33 Filed 03/18/10 Page 1 of 6
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

in excess of eight hours per day and forty hours per week. 

Plaintiffs allege that they were not compensated for their overtime

hours, as required by California and federal law. They aver that

they did not perform duties that would have exempted Defendants

from compensating them for overtime.

Plaintiffs assert the following claims against Defendants:

(1) failure to pay overtime, in violation of California Labor Code

section 510; (2) failure to pay overtime, in violation of the Fair

Labor Standards Act (FLSA); (3) failure to pay wages due, in

violation of California Labor Code section 201; (4) violation of

California Business and Professions Code section 17200; and

(5) providing inadequate pay statements, in violation of California

Labor Code section 226.

Defendant Ken Irwin, who allegedly had control over

Plaintiffs’ working conditions, has filed a notice stating that he

has a pending bankruptcy petition in the United States Bankruptcy

Court. Mr. Irwin asserts that, under 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(1), he is

entitled to an automatic stay of Plaintiffs’ proceedings. 

LEGAL STANDARD

A complaint must contain a “short and plain statement of the

claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R.

Civ. P. 8(a). Dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a

claim is appropriate only when the complaint does not give the

defendant fair notice of a legally cognizable claim and the grounds

on which it rests. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555

(2007). In considering whether the complaint is sufficient to

state a claim, the court will take all material allegations as true

and construe them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. NL

Case 4:09-cv-03613-CW Document 33 Filed 03/18/10 Page 2 of 6
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

Indus., Inc. v. Kaplan, 792 F.2d 896, 898 (9th Cir. 1986). 

However, this principle is inapplicable to legal conclusions;

“threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action,

supported by mere conclusory statements,” are not taken as true. 

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, ___ U.S. ___, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949-50 (2009)

(citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). 

DISCUSSION

In their opening brief, Defendants argue, among other things,

that typographical errors in Plaintiffs’ original complaint

rendered some claims vague, warranting their dismissal. To address

these issues, Plaintiffs filed a FAC to address the errors

complained of by Defendants. In their reply, Defendants state that

the FAC corrects the purported pleading deficiencies based on the

typographical errors. Defendants maintain that, despite these

corrections, Plaintiffs’ complaint remains susceptible to

dismissal. 

I. Plaintiffs’ Failure to Consent

Defendants argue that Plaintiffs’ action must be dismissed for

failure to state a claim and for lack of subject matter

jurisdiction because Plaintiffs have not consented to participate

in this suit. In actions to enforce FLSA provisions, no “employee

shall be a party plaintiff to any such action unless he gives his

consent in writing to become such a party and such consent is filed

in the court in which such action is brought.” 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).

Plaintiffs have not consented in writing to be parties in this

action. Neither their FAC nor any other written declaration

provides their consent. As a result, they have not met the

Case 4:09-cv-03613-CW Document 33 Filed 03/18/10 Page 3 of 6
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

1 Plaintiffs’ FAC asserts that this Court’s jurisdiction,

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, rests on their FLSA claims. If

Plaintiffs fail to state such claims, the Court would lack federalquestion subject matter jurisdiction over their action. 

4

requirements to bring suit under the FLSA.1 To proceed on their

claims, Plaintiffs must file, in writing, statements indicating

their consent. 

II. Sufficiency of Plaintiffs’ Claims under California Business

and Professions Code Section 17200

Plaintiffs claim that Defendants’ failure to abide by state

and federal wage-and-hour laws constitutes a violation of

California Business and Professions Code section 17200, which is

also known as California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL). The UCL

prohibits any “unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or

practice.” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. The UCL incorporates

other laws and treats violations of those laws as unlawful business

practices independently actionable under state law. Chabner v.

United Omaha Life Ins. Co., 225 F.3d 1042, 1048 (9th Cir. 2000). 

Violation of almost any federal, state or local law may serve as

the basis for a UCL claim. Saunders v. Superior Ct., 27 Cal. App.

4th 832, 838-39 (1994). 

Defendants maintain that Plaintiffs’ UCL claims must be

dismissed because Plaintiffs do not allege any facts that tend to

show monopolistic or anti-competitive practices. They cite two

cases, both of which address antitrust claims. See Gonzales v.

Proctor and Gamble Company, 247 F.R.D. 616 (C.D. Cal. 2007);

Breakdown Services, Ltd. v. Now Casting, Inc., 550 F. Supp. 2d 1123

(C.D. Cal. 2007). However, Plaintiffs do not assert that

Defendants violated state or federal antitrust law; they allege

Case 4:09-cv-03613-CW Document 33 Filed 03/18/10 Page 4 of 6
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 Defendants also argue that, because Plaintiffs do not plead

facts to support the allegations concerning Defendants’ failure to

pay a minimum wage or meal premiums, Plaintiffs’ UCL claim must be

dismissed. However, as noted above, Plaintiffs state a UCL claim

based on their allegations that Defendants failed to compensate

them for overtime. 

5

that Defendants committed wage-and-hour violations. UCL claims do

not require allegations of anti-competitive conduct; the UCL

“borrows violations of other laws and treats them as unlawful

practices that the unfair competition law makes independently

actionable.” Blanks v. Shaw, 171 Cal. App. 4th 336, 363-64 (2009)

(citation and internal quotation marks omitted). 

Plaintiffs aver that Defendants violated section 17200 by

failing to compensate them for overtime pursuant to state and

federal law. This allegation sufficiently supports Plaintiffs’

claims under section 17200.

III. Allegations Concerning Deprivation of the Minimum Wage and

Meal Premiums

In connection with their UCL claims, Plaintiffs assert that

they have “been illegally deprived of the minimum wage, overtime

pay and missed meal premiums to which they were legally

entitled . . . .” FAC ¶ 42. Defendants assert that Plaintiffs do

not allege facts to support the allegations concerning the failure

to pay a minimum wage or meal premiums and, as a result, these

allegations should be stricken.2 Plaintiffs acknowledge that they

are not bringing claims concerning the minimum wage or meal

periods. Accordingly, because the allegations concerning the

minimum wage and meal periods are immaterial to Plaintiffs’ claims

for overtime pay, the Court strikes them from the FAC. See Fed. R.

Civ. P. 12(f). 

Case 4:09-cv-03613-CW Document 33 Filed 03/18/10 Page 5 of 6
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

6

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS in part

Defendants’ motion to dismiss and alternative motion to strike, and

DENIES them in part. Within three days of the date of this Order,

Plaintiffs shall file declarations that formally state their

consent to sue. Their failure to do so will result in the

dismissal of their FLSA claims. If Plaintiffs file consents,

Defendant EI Maintenance Company shall file its answer within

twenty-one days of the date of their filing. In addition, the

Court strikes the allegations contained in paragraph forty-two of

Plaintiffs’ FAC concerning Defendants’ failure to pay the minimum

wage and missed meal premiums. 

The Court stays all proceedings as to Defendant Ken Irwin

because he has an ongoing bankruptcy case.

A case management conference is scheduled for May 4, 2010 at

2:00 p.m. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 

CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

March 18, 2010

Case 4:09-cv-03613-CW Document 33 Filed 03/18/10 Page 6 of 6