Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-02050/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-02050-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MIGUEL A. CRUZ, and JOHN D. HANSEN,

individually and on behalf of all

others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

DOLLAR TREE STORES, INC.,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 07-2050 SC

ORDER GRANTING

DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO

DISMISS PLAINTIFFS'

FRAUD CLAIM

I. INTRODUCTION

On April 11, 2007, Plaintiffs Miguel Cruz, John Hansen, and

all others similarly situated ("Plaintiffs") filed a complaint

against Defendant Dollar Tree Stores, Inc. ("Defendant" or "Dollar

Tree"). See Docket No. 1. Presently before the Court is

Defendant's motion to dismiss the Seventh Cause of Action, a claim

for fraud and deceit. See Docket No. 5; Compl. ¶¶ 75-85. 

Plaintiffs opposed the motion and Defendant filed a reply. See

Docket Nos. 16, 18.

For the reasons discussed herein, the Court GRANTS

Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' Seventh Cause of Action

for fraud and deceit.

II. BACKGROUND

According to the Complaint, Plaintiffs are former Store

Managers at Dollar Tree who allege that they were improperly

Case 3:07-cv-02050-SC Document 19 Filed 06/29/07 Page 1 of 4
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

classified as exempt and therefore denied wages for overtime. 

Compl., ¶¶ 2-4. The Seventh Cause of Action alleges that

Defendant committed fraud and deceit because the company and its

agents knew that Plaintiffs should be classified as "non-exempt"

employees, but classified them as "exempt" in order to avoid

paying overtime. Id. at ¶¶ 75-85. Plaintiffs allege that

Defendant knew its statements were false and made them to induce

Plaintiffs to work extra hours for free. Id.

III. LEGAL STANDARD

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a motion to

dismiss can be granted if the plaintiff fails "to state a claim

upon which relief can be granted." Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). 

When evaluating a motion to dismiss, the court accepts the facts

as stated by the nonmoving party and draws all inferences in its

favor. See Everest & Jennings, Inc. v. Am. Motorists Ins. Co., 23

F.3d 226, 228 (9th Cir. 1994). Furthermore, courts must assume

that all general allegations "embrace whatever specific facts

might be necessary to support them." Peloza v. Capistrano Unified

Sch. Dist., 37 F.3d 517, 521 (9th Cir. 1994). At the pleading

stage, the plaintiff "need only show that the facts alleged, if

proved, would confer standing upon him." Warren v. Fox Family

Worldwide, Inc., 328 F.3d 1136, 1140 (9th Cir. 2003). If a

complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim, "leave to

amend should be granted unless the court determines that the

allegation of other facts consistent with the challenged pleading

could not possibly cure the deficiency." Schreiber Distrib. Co.

Case 3:07-cv-02050-SC Document 19 Filed 06/29/07 Page 2 of 4
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

v. Serv-Well Furniture Co., 806 F.2d 1393, 1401 (9th Cir. 1986).

IV. DISCUSSION

"To survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim

under Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint generally must satisfy only the

minimal notice pleading requirements of [Federal] Rule [of Civil

Procedure] 8(a)(2)." Porter v. Jones, 319 F.3d 483, 494 (9th Cir.

2003). However, where a complaint includes allegations of fraud,

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) requires more specificity

including an account of the "time, place, and specific content of

the false representations as well as the identities of the parties

to the misrepresentations." Edwards v. Marin Park, Inc., 356 F.3d

1058, 1066 (9th Cir. 2004) (citation omitted). "To comply with

Rule 9(b), allegations of fraud must be specific enough to give

defendants notice of the particular misconduct which is alleged to

constitute the fraud charged so that they can defend against the

charge and not just deny that they have done anything wrong." 

Bly-Magee v. California, 236 F.3d 1014, 1019 (9th Cir. 2001)

(citation and quotation omitted). 

In their Complaint, Plaintiffs' Seventh Cause of Action is

for fraud and deceit. See Compl., ¶¶ 75-85. This fraud claim

must meet the heightened pleading requirements of Rule 9(b). See

Edwards v. Marin Park, Inc., 356 F.3d at 1066. This requires

Plaintiffs to give a specific account of the fraud so that Dollar

Tree can defend against the charge with more than a blanket

denial. Under the Rule 9(b) standard, Plaintiffs' Complaint fails

to give sufficient detail with respect to the time, place,

Case 3:07-cv-02050-SC Document 19 Filed 06/29/07 Page 3 of 4
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

content, and identities of the parties engaged in the fraud. 

Plaintiffs' argue that the fraud was perpetrated during the entire

class period, at every Dollar Tree store in California, through a

corporate policy and practice, and by the entire corporation. See

Compl.; Opp'n, 8-9. These allegations are too vague to allow

Defendant to respond constructively. To satisfy Rule 9(b),

Plaintiffs should identify specific oral statements or written

documents indicative of fraud, including specific information on

the timing of the incidents and employees involved.

V. CONCLUSION

For the reasons discussed herein, Defendant's Motion to

Dismiss is GRANTED and Plaintiffs' Seventh Cause of Action for

fraud and deceit is DISMISSED without prejudice. Plaintiffs have

30 days from the date of this Order to file an amended complaint.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 29, 2007 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:07-cv-02050-SC Document 19 Filed 06/29/07 Page 4 of 4