Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-02668/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-02668-0/pdf.json

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

---

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

ROBERT ESTORGA,

Plaintiff,

v.

SANTA CLARA VALLEY 

TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY,

Defendant.

Case No. 16-cv-02668-BLF 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 

DISMISS WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

[Re: ECF 11]

Plaintiff Robert Estorga, on behalf of himself and all persons similarly situated, brings this 

action against Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (“VTA”), alleging that VTA violated 

the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) by failing to compensate employees for hours worked in 

excess of forty hours in a workweek. Compl. ¶¶ 7-9, ECF 1; 29 U.S.C. § 207(a). VTA has moved 

to dismiss the entire complaint for failure to plead any factual details. Mot., ECF 11. Having 

considered the parties’ respective written submissions, the Court finds the matters 

appropriate for submission without oral argument. Civ. L.R. 7-11(b). The Court therefore 

VACATES the hearing scheduled for September 22, 2016. For the reasons stated below, the 

Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to dismiss with leave to amend.

A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) tests the 

legal sufficiency of a complaint. Navarro v. Block, 250 F.3d 729, 732 (9th Cir. 2001). Under Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), a complaint must include “a short and plain statement of the claim showing 

that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Any complaint that does not meet this requirement can be 

dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). A “short and plain statement” demands that a plaintiff plead 

“enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face,” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 

550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007), which requires that “the plaintiff plead factual content that allows the 

court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” 

Case 5:16-cv-02668-BLF Document 15 Filed 09/12/16 Page 1 of 3
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

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). See also Landers v. Quality Commc’ns, Inc., 771 

F.3d 638, 645 (9th Cir. 2014) (holding that “at a minimum, a plaintiff asserting a violation of the 

FLSA overtime provisions must allege that she worked more than forty hours in a given 

workweek without being compensated for the hours worked in excess of forty during that week”). 

The Court must “accept factual allegations in the complaint as true and construe the pleadings in 

the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.” Manzarek v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 

519 F.3d 1025, 1031 (9th Cir. 2008). 

In its motion to dismiss, Defendant argues that Plaintiff failed to plead any factual details 

beyond generalized allegations relating to violations of FLSA’s overtime provisions. Mot. 3. 

Plaintiff’s opposition states that Defendant “is well aware of what this complaint concerns” and 

proffered additional facts not referenced in the complaint, such as a requirement to travel before 

and after a scheduled shift. Opp. 1-2, ECF 12. Plaintiff also requests judicial notices of exhibits

evidencing prior disputes with VTA, attached to the opposition. Opp. 2.

For the purpose of this motion, the Court shall disregard facts that are not alleged on the 

face of the complaint or not contained in documents attached to the complaint. Knievel v. ESPN, 

393 F.3d 1068, 1076 (9th Cir. 2005). Although the Court may consider “documents ‘whose 

contents are alleged in a complaint and whose authenticity no party questions, [. . . ] which are not 

physically attached to the [plaintiff’s] pleading,’” the complaint did not allege the contents of the 

exhibits Plaintiff attached to the opposition and thus failed to incorporate them by reference. 

Northstar Fin. Advisors Inc. v. Schwab Investments, 779 F.3d 1036, 1043 (9th Cir. 2015) (citing

Knievel, 393 F.3d at 1076). Moreover, Defendant objects to these exhibits because, among other 

reasons, Plaintiff had not provided the basis for judicial notice in accordance with Fed. R. Evid. 

201(c)(2). Reply 2, ECF 13. Accordingly, the Court will not consider the exhibits attached to 

Plaintiff’s opposition in evaluating whether the complaint meets the Rule 8(a)(2) requirement.

In reviewing the complaint, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s bare-bones allegations contain 

little to no factual details beyond legal conclusions. Even if Defendant were to know the facts of 

the case as argued by Plaintiff, Opp. 1, Defendant’s supposed knowledge does not discharge 

Plaintiff’s obligation to provide sufficient pleading under Rule 8(a)(2). The Court thus concludes 

Case 5:16-cv-02668-BLF Document 15 Filed 09/12/16 Page 2 of 3
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

that Plaintiff’s complaint fails to support a claim that the pleader is entitled to relief.

If a Rule 12(b)(6) motion is granted, the “court should grant leave to amend . . . , unless it 

determines that the pleading could not possibly be cured by the allegation of other facts.” Lopez v. 

Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000). Plaintiff’s opposition and the accompanying exhibits 

suggest that Plaintiff may be able to cure the deficiencies by alleging additional facts. 

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to dismiss with leave to amend. The Court 

further ORDERS the Plaintiff to file any amended pleading on or before October 3, 2016.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 12, 2016

 ______________________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

United States District Judge

Case 5:16-cv-02668-BLF Document 15 Filed 09/12/16 Page 3 of 3