Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-05748/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-05748-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 29:201 Denial of Overtime Compensation

---

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID M. CATHCART, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

SARA LEE CORPORATION, et al.,

Defendants /

No. C-09-5748 MMC

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’

MOTION TO DISMISS; VACATING

APRIL 16, 2010 HEARING

Before the Court is the Motion to Dismiss, filed February 17, 2010 by defendants

Sara Lee Corporation and Sara Lee Bakery Group. Plaintiffs David M. Cathcart, James H.

Whitehead, Robert W. Decker, and Dale Baldisseri have filed opposition, to which

defendants have replied. Having read and considered the papers filed in support of and in

opposition to the motion, the Court deems the matter suitable for decision thereon,

VACATES the hearing scheduled for April 16, 2010, and rules as follows.

1. Contrary to defendants’ argument, the First Claim for Relief, by which plaintiffs

assert a state law claim for failure to pay wages, is not subject to dismissal. In particular, to

the extent plaintiffs’ claim is based on an assertion that defendants violated state law by

failing to compensate plaintiffs at required overtime rates, either when such work was

performed or upon termination, plaintiffs’ failure to allege facts to support a finding that

defendants have misclassified plaintiffs as “exempt[ ] from the requirement that an

Case 3:09-cv-05748-MMC Document 28 Filed 04/13/10 Page 1 of 4
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

In their motion, defendants assert that neither defendant is plaintiffs’ employer, but,

rather, that the employer is “The Earthgrains Companies, Inc.” (See Defs.’ at 1:27-28.) In

their opposition, plaintiffs assert that their respective wage statements identify the employer

as “Sara Lee,” and further assert that “The Earthgrains Companies, Inc.” is not authorized

to do business in California (see Pls.’ Opp. at 3:12 - 4:4), the state in which plaintiffs allege

they are or were employed. Because the complaint alleges that each plaintiff was

employed by the named defendants, the Court does not at this time consider any factual

dispute that may exist as to the identity of plaintiffs’ employer(s) and/or any entity’s ability to

do business in California.

2

overtime rate of compensation be paid pursuant to [the Labor Code],” see Eicher v.

Advanced Business Integrators, Inc., 151 Cal. App. 4th 1363, 1371 (2007), is not a ground

for dismissal. Rather, “[t[he assertion of an exemption from the overtime laws is

considered to be an affirmative defense,” see Ramirez v. Yosemite Water Co., 20 Cal.4th

785, 794-95 (1999), and a plaintiff has no “obligation to anticipate [an affirmative] defense

by stating in his complaint that the defendant [is not entitled to an affirmative defense],” see

Gomez v. Toledo, 446 U.S. 635, 640 (1980). Further, to the extent the First Claim for

Relief is based on plaintiffs’ assertion that defendants failed to pay plaintiffs the minimum

wage, plaintiffs have not failed to allege sufficient facts to state a claim. The complaint

alleges that plaintiffs were “made to work off-the-clock, causing them to be paid nothing at

all for substantial amounts of work” (see Compl. ¶¶ 1, 22, 24); payment of “nothing at all”

for work performed necessarily contemplates payment in an amount less than the

minimum wage.1

2. As plaintiffs concede, the Second Claim for Relief, by which plaintiffs allege

defendants failed to provide plaintiffs with meal periods, is subject to dismissal for the

reason plaintiffs do not allege they worked the requisite number of hours that would entitle

them to meal breaks. (See Pls.’ Opp. at 7:22-24.) Additionally, the Second Claim for

Relief is subject to dismissal because, as defendants correctly argue, the complaint

includes no facts to support plaintiffs’ pleaded conclusion that defendants “violated [the]

obligation” to provide meal breaks. (See Compl. ¶ 32); see Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct.

1937, 1950 (2009) (holding courts “are not bound to accept as true a legal conclusion

couched as a factual allegation”) (internal quotation and citation omitted).

Case 3:09-cv-05748-MMC Document 28 Filed 04/13/10 Page 2 of 4
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

3. Contrary to defendants’ argument, the Third Claim for Relief, by which plaintiffs

allege defendants failed to provide plaintiffs with accurate wage statements, is not subject

to dismissal. As discussed above, plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged defendants failed to

pay required overtime and, in some instances, failed to pay them any amount for work they

performed. Given such allegations, the wage statements provided to plaintiffs during the

periods in which such work was performed necessarily would be inaccurate. See Cal. Lab.

Code § 226(a) (providing employer must provide “accurate itemized statement,” including,

inter alia, accurate statement of “net wages earned”).

4. Contrary to defendants’ argument, and for the reasons stated above with respect

to the First Claim for Relief, plaintiffs’ Fourth Claim for Relief, by which plaintiffs allege

defendants violated federal law by failing to pay overtime and minimum wages, is not

subject to dismissal. See Corning Glass Works v. Brennan, 417 U.S. 188, 196-97 (1974)

(noting “application of an exemption under the Fair Labor Standards Act is a matter of

affirmative defense on which the employer has the burden of proof”).

5. The Fifth Claim for Relief, by which plaintiffs allege defendants engaged in

unlawful and unfair business practices in violation of § 17200 of the California Business &

Professions Code, is, as pleaded, wholly derivative of the four claims for relief discussed

above. Accordingly, the Fifth Claim for Relief is subject to dismissal to the extent it is

based on the Second Claim for Relief, but is not otherwise subject to dismissal.

CONCLUSION

Defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, as follows:

1. To the extent the motion seeks dismissal of the Second Claim for Relief, and

dismissal of the Fifth Claim for Relief to the extent it based on the Second Claim for Relief,

the motion is hereby GRANTED, and such claims are hereby DISMISSED with leave to

amend.

2. In all other respects, the motion is hereby DENIED.

//

//

Case 3:09-cv-05748-MMC Document 28 Filed 04/13/10 Page 3 of 4
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

3. If plaintiffs wish to file a First Amended Complaint, plaintiffs shall file their First

Amended Complaint no later than April 30, 2010.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 13, 2010 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-05748-MMC Document 28 Filed 04/13/10 Page 4 of 4