Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-04347/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-04347-6/pdf.json

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

---

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICHARD CASTLE, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

WELLS FARGO FINANCIAL, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 06-4347 SI

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS'

MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS'

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION WITHOUT

PREJUDICE AND VACATING

HEARING

Defendants Wells Fargo Financial, Inc. d/b/a Wells Fargo Financial and Wells Fargo Financial

Acceptance, move to dismiss plaintiffs’ fifth cause of action for failure to provide rest breaks and meal

periods in violation of California Labor Code section 226.7. Defendants’ motion is currently scheduled

for a hearing on November 17, 2006. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court determines the

matter is appropriate for resolution without oral argument, and accordingly VACATES the hearing.

Defendants contend that California Labor Code Section 226.7 provides a claim for the payment

of a penalty, and that as such, plaintiffs’ fifth cause of action is governed by, and barred by, the one-year

statute of limitations in California Code of Civil Procedure Section 340. Plaintiffs counter that § 226.7

provides for the repayment of wages, not a penalty, and that the three-year statute of limitations under

California Code of Civil Procedure Section 338 applies. 

This specific question is currently pending before the California Supreme Court in Murphy v.

Kenneth Cole Productions, 130 P.3d 519 (Cal. 2006). Murphy was accepted for review in February,

2006 and has not yet been decided. This Court determines that, until the California Supreme Court

decides this question of California law, it would be judicially inefficient to decide the pending motion

on the merits.

Case 3:06-cv-04347-SI Document 39 Filed 11/08/06 Page 1 of 2
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

Accordingly, the Court hereby DENIES defendants’ motion to dismiss without prejudice to

renewal after the Supreme Court issues a decision in Murphy. In addition, the Court DENIES

defendants’ request for judicial notice as moot; defendants may resubmit their request in the event they

renew their motion. (Docket Nos. 24 and 25). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 8, 2006 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-04347-SI Document 39 Filed 11/08/06 Page 2 of 2