Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-01630/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-01630-1/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 1

 A description of the underlying facts of this case is set forth in the Court’s August 24,

2010 Order on Defendant’s motion to dismiss the original complaint. [Doc. #29]

1 09cv1630-BTM (WMc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARK GLEN GROCE,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 09cv1630-BTM (WMc)

ORDER RE MOTION TO DISMISS

v. FAC

THEODORE BERNARD CLAUDAT dba

QUALITY INSTANT PRINTING,

Defendant.

Defendant moves to dismiss the FAC. For the reasons set forth below, this motion

is DENIED.

I. DISCUSSION1

A. Timeliness

The Court’s August 24, 2010 Order granting in part and denying in part Defendant’s

motion to dismiss the original complaint provided Plaintiff with a September 26, 2010

deadline to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff filed the FAC nunc pro tunc to September

29, 2010, the date the amended complaint was received. 

Defendant contends that Plaintiff’s failure to timely file necessitates dismissal without

further leave to amend. The Court disagrees. Plaintiff, who is incarcerated, signed the

FAC’s proof of service on September 24, 2011 and declares that he deposited the FAC in

Case 3:09-cv-01630-BTM-WMC Document 37 Filed 05/19/11 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

2

 Contrary to Defendant’s position, this rule does not apply only to documents filed

pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 4(c). C.f. Douglas v. Noelle, 567 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir.

2009).

2 09cv1630-BTM (WMc)

the prison mail system on that date. See doc. #31 Ex. B. As a pro se prisoner, Plaintiff is

entitled to the “mailbox rule,” which dictates that the statutory filing date is the date a

document was presented to prison authorities for mailing to the court and not the date it was

received. See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988).2 Under this rule, Plaintiff’s

amended complaint is timely filed. Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss the entire complaint on

timeliness grounds is DENIED.

B. Statute Of Limitations

In the August 24, 2010 Order, the Court instructed, “No further motions to dismiss

based on statute of limitations may be made by Defendant.” (Order at 4) Nevertheless,

Defendant now argues that the statute of limitations bars Plaintiff’s FLSA and UCL claims

and that equitable tolling is not available. (Mem. at 2-3) 

Pursuant to the August 24, 2010 order, these arguments are clearly not appropriate

in a motion to dismiss and will not be considered at this time. As stated before, “any statuteof-limitations defense should be raised in a motion for summary judgment.” (Order at 5)

C. Failure To State A Claim

1. UCL Claims

Defendant seeks dismissal of Plaintiff’s UCL claims on three grounds. First,

Defendant claims confusion as to whether Plaintiff is suing under California’s Unfair

Competition Law or the Unfair Practices Act and states that it will “base its argument on the

Unfair Practices Act.” (Mem. at 5) Paragraph 40 of the FAC reads, “Plaintiff alleges that

California Business and Profession Code §§ 17000 et seq. to 17200 et seq states ‘unfair

competition shall mean and include unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business practices.’” This

is a quote from § 17200 of the UCL. Although pro se Plaintiff may not have cited the

intended statute with exact precision, it is clear that Plaintiff is bringing claims under the UCL

Case 3:09-cv-01630-BTM-WMC Document 37 Filed 05/19/11 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 09cv1630-BTM (WMc)

and not under the Unfair Practices Act.

Next, Defendant argues that because “the only claims which survive the statue of

limitations is Plaintiff’s UCL claims which accrued between July 23, 2005 and July 29, 2005"

and “Plaintiff has failed to plead any damages specific to this 6 day period”, Plaintiff failed to

plead enough facts to state a claim. (Mem. at 5) As discussed above, the Court will not

address Defendant’s statute of limitations arguments at this stage of proceedings. If

Defendant is ultimately successful in these arguments, then Plaintiff will have to put forth

evidence of any damages accrued during this six-day period.

Finally, Defendant asserts, “Plaintiff also requests compensatory relief, however

monetary relief beyond restitution is may [sic] not be recovered under a UCL claim.” (Mem.

at 6) The Court has already held that “[r]estitution is the sole form of monetary relief

available under the UCL.” (Order at 7) Plaintiff acknowledges this holding and contends that

the compensatory damages sought are not in reference to the UCL claims. (Opp. at 6) To

the extent Plaintiff’s prayer for restitutionary damages are for withheld wages to which

Plaintiff has an ownership interest, these wages are recoverable under the UCL. See Korea

Supply Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 29 Cal. 4th 1134, 1149 (2003). For these reasons,

dismissal of Plaintiff’s UCL claims is not appropriate at this time. 

2. Negligence Claim

Defendant has two arguments for dismissal of Plaintiff’s negligence claim. First,

Defendant asserts that the Workers’ Compensation Act preempts Plaintiff’s claim for

negligence. Previously, the Court ruled that physical injuries caused by employer negligence

or without employer fault are exclusively compensated under the workers’ compensation

system. Order at 6. However, upon reconsideration, this rule does not apply when an

employer fails to secure workers’ compensation coverage. See Cal Lab Code § 3706 (“If any

employer fails to secure the payment of compensation, any injured employee or his

dependents may bring an action at law against such employer for damages, as if this division

did not apply.”). Plaintiff alleges – and Defendant does not contest – that Defendant failed

Case 3:09-cv-01630-BTM-WMC Document 37 Filed 05/19/11 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 09cv1630-BTM (WMc)

obtain the requisite workers’ compensation. (Compl. ¶ 30; Compl. Ex. B (letter from the

Workers’ Compensation Insurance Rating Bureau of California stating that there is no

evidence that Defendant had secured coverage during the time period at issue)) Plaintiff has

met his burden to “establish that [Defendant] failed ‘to secure the payment of compensation’

as required under the Act,” and therefore, Plaintiff’s negligence claims are not preempted by

the Workers’ Compensation Act. Rymer v. Hagler, 211 Cal. App. 3d 1171, 1178 (5th Dist.

1989). If Defendant has evidence that it had, in fact, secured workers’ compensation

coverage at the time of Plaintiff’s alleged injuries, it may reassert its preemption argument

in a motion for summary judgment.

Next, Defendant argues that “Plaintiff fails to plead how Defendant’s alleged failure

to obtain workers’ compensation insurance caused Plaintiff to incur medical expenses.”

Because Plaintiff is not preempted from alleging negligence for his physical injuries alone,

the allegation that his injury caused him to incur medical expenses is sufficient to establish

causation.

II. CONCLUSION

Defendant’s motion to dismiss the FAC is DENIED. Defendant’s arguments based

on the statute of limitations were improperly raised. Pursuant to the August 24, 2010

Order, Defendant may raise statute of limitations defenses in a motion for summary

judgment. 

The Court reconsiders its prior holding that the Workers’ Compensation Act

preempts Plaintiff’s negligence claim for his physical injuries. Plaintiff has alleged

sufficient facts to show that Defendant had failed “to secure the payment of

compensation” as required by the Act, and thus, Plaintiff’s negligence claims are not

preempted.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 18, 2011

Honorable Barry Ted Moskowitz

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-01630-BTM-WMC Document 37 Filed 05/19/11 Page 4 of 4