Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02488/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02488-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Fair Labor Standards

---

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

YOLANDA GONZALES,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 12cv2488 JM

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION

vs.

FRESENIUS MEDICAL CARE

HOLDINGS, d/b/a FRESENIUS

MEDICAL CARE NORTH

AMERICA; FRESENIUS

VASCULAR CARE, INC.;

AMERICAN ACCESS CARE OF

SAN DIEGO, LLC; and AMERICAN

ACCESS CARE OF SOUTHERN

CALIFORNIA, LLC.,

Defendants.

Defendants Fresenius Medical Care Holdings Inc. d/b/a Fresenius Medical Care

North America (“FMCNA”), Fresenius Vascular Care, Inc. (“Vascular Care”),

American Access Care of San Diego, LLC (“AACSD”), and American Access Care of

Southern California, LLC (“AACSC”) move to dismiss the Second Amended

Complaint (“SAC”) for failure to state a claim pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). 

Plaintiff Yolanda Gonzales opposes the motion. Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(d)(1), the

court findsthe present matter appropriate for resolution without oral argument. For the

reasons set forth below, the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction and dismisses the

action without prejudice. The Clerk of Court is instructed to close the file

- 1 - 12cv2488

Case 3:12-cv-02488-JM-WMC Document 25 Filed 10/15/13 Page 1 of 6
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

BACKGROUND

On March 26, 2013 Plaintiff filed the operative SAC alleging eight state law

wage and hour claims for (1) Violation of IWC Wage Order No. 4-2001(3)(A); (2)

Violation of IWC Wage Order No. 4-2001(4)(B); (3) Violation of IWC Wage Order

No. 4-2001(11); (4) Violation of IWC Wage Order No. 4-2001(12); (5) Violation of

IWC Wage Order No. 4-2001(7)(A); (6) Violation of Labor Code §201-203; (7)

Violation of Business and Professions Code §17200 etseq.; and (8) Violation of Labor

Code §2698. Plaintiff alleges diversity jurisdiction pursuant to the Class Action

Fairness Act of 2005 (“CAFA”), 28 U.S.C. §1332(d)(2). FMCNA is an alleged New

York corporation, Vascular Care a Delaware corporation, AACSD a Delaware limited

liability company, and AACSC a California limited liability company. (SAC ¶1). 

Notably, these jurisdictional allegations, contained in the introductory paragraph ofthe

SAC, fail to identify the citizenship of each Defendant. 

Plaintiff alleges that she was an employee of all four Defendants. (SAC ¶3).

When employed by one of the unidentified Defendants, Plaintiff was provided with an

“Employee Handbook” welcoming Plaintiff to FMCNA and a non-disclosure

agreement acknowledging that, as an employee of FMCNA, she would maintain

confidences of the company. (SAC ¶4). Plaintiff alleges that FMCNA “manages and

controls” Vascular Care, which was the company name on her paychecks. (SAC ¶6).

Plaintiff alleges that Vascular Care “manages and controls” AACSD and AACSC. 

(SAC §7). Plaintiff believes that she was employed by AACSD and AACSC. (SAC

¶8). Plaintiff’s wage statements also identify AACSD and AACSC as her employer. 

(SAC ¶8).

In broad brush, Plaintiff, who worked for Defendants, collectively, sometime

“within the four (4) years preceding the filing of this action (October 12, 2012),” (SAC

¶23), alleges that she is a non-exempt employee and “regularly” worked over 8 hours

per day and 40 hours per week without being paid “overtime compensation as

demanded by law.” (SAC ¶24). She also alleges that Defendants rounded off to the

- 2 - 12cv2488

Case 3:12-cv-02488-JM-WMC Document 25 Filed 10/15/13 Page 2 of 6
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

nearest quarter of an hour to wrongfully adjust the actual time worked by Plaintiff. 

Plaintiff also alleges that she was “denied the opportunity to take a meal period within

the first five (5) hours worked or a second meal period when they worked over ten (10)

hours in a single shift.” (SAC ¶29). Plaintiff further alleges that she “rarely, if ever”

received a 10 minute rest break for each four hours of work and that the itemized wage

statement furnished by “Defendants did not accurately reflect the total hours worked,

the gross wages, and the net wages.” (SAC ¶¶ 32, 34). 

Plaintiff brings the alleged wage and hour claims on her behalf and on behalf of

six subclasses consisting of all former, current, and prospective non-exempt employees

of Defendants who (1) did not receive an accurate timekeeping record; (2) worked

between five and ten hours without receiving the required meal break or compensation;

(3) worked more than ten hours without receiving a second meal break or

compensation; (4) did not receive required rest periods or compensation; (5) did not

receive an accurate itemized wage statement; and (6) did not receive timely payment

upon termination of employment. (SAC ¶38). 

On March 11, 2013 the court sua sponte dismissed the original complaint

pursuant to Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure with leave to amend (the

“March Dismissal Order”). (Ct. Dkt. 12). The March Dismissal Order specifically

noted deficiencies with the CAFA jurisdictional allegations and the complaint’s failure

to comply with Rule 8(a). The court sua sponte granted leave to amend to address the

jurisdictional deficiencies and, as noted above, Plaintiff filed the SAC on March 26,

2013. 

On June 17, 2013, this court issued an Order to Show Cause Why Action Should

Not Be Dismissed, Transferred, or Stayed (“OSC”). (Ct. Dkt. 18). Based upon the

parties’ submissions in response to Defendants’ renewed motion to dismiss, the court

learned that another wage and hour case was pending in the Central District of

California against FMCNA. Moreyra v. Fresenius Medical Care Holdings, Inc., Case

No. SACV 10-00517-JVS (Rxx) (the “Moreyra Action”). Substantial litigation

- 3 - 12cv2488

Case 3:12-cv-02488-JM-WMC Document 25 Filed 10/15/13 Page 3 of 6
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

proceedings occurred in the Moreyra Action prior to Plaintiff commencing the present

action. In Moreyra three subclasses were certified and the court had preliminarily

approved the global settlement of all claims against FMCNA. A Final Approval

Hearing in Moreyra was calendared for June 24, 2013. In light of the settlement and

near finality of the Moreyra action, the court requested briefing on whether the present

action should be dismissed, transferred, or stayed pending resolution of the Moreyra

action. (Ct. Dkt. 18).

This order addresses the court’s subject matter jurisdiction under CAFA,

concludes that subject matter jurisdiction is lacking, and dismisses the action for lack

of subject matter jurisdiction. In light of the dismissal of the action, the court does not

reach the issues raised in the OSC nor does the court address Defendants’ motion to

dismiss.

DISCUSSION

Subject Matter Jurisdiction

The court addresses subject matter jurisdiction first. Federal courts are courts

of limited jurisdiction. “Without jurisdiction the court cannot proceed at all in any

cause. Jurisdiction is power to declare the law, and when it ceases to exist, the only

function remaining to the court is that of announcing the fact and dismissing the

cause.” Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83, 94 (1998)

(quoting Ex parte McCardle, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 506, 514, 19 L.Ed. 264 (1868)). 

Accordingly, federal courts are under a continuing duty to confirm their jurisdictional

power and are even “obliged to inquire sua sponte whenever a doubt arises as to [its]

existence. . . .” Mt. Healthy City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 278

(1977) (citations omitted). 

As set forth in the March Dismissal Order, the court may exercise federal

jurisdiction under CAFA where (1) there is minimal diversity between the parties, (2)

the proposed class consists of at least 100 class members, and (3) the amount in

controversy exceeds $5,000,000. 28 U.S.C. §1332(d)(2). Further,theMarch Dismissal

- 4 - 12cv2488

Case 3:12-cv-02488-JM-WMC Document 25 Filed 10/15/13 Page 4 of 6
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

Order dismissed the action with leave to amend to address subject matter jurisdiction:

With respect to minimal diversity, the court notes that the complaint does

not allege which of the four entities employed Plaintiff. Rather, Plaintiff

simply alleges that she was employed by “Defendants.” Further, 1

Plaintiff does not allege the state in which she was employed, where she

performed her employment related duties, the principal place of business

of each entity, or even when or how long she was employed by

“Defendants.” 

(Ct. Dkt. ). The court also directed Plaintiff’s attention to Rule 8(a) which requires

a pleading to contain “a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s

jurisdiction.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a). Despite express notice to Plaintiff of the pleading

deficiencies, Plaintiff largely reiterates the same (inadequate) jurisdictional

allegations.2

With respect to citizenship, the Statement of Jurisdiction allegations in the SAC

are non-existent. (SAC ¶¶18-21). Plaintiff simply alleges that Defendants,

collectively, “are minimally diverse.” (SAC ¶18). Plaintiff does not allege the state

of incorporation or the entity’s principal place of business. See 28 U.S.C. §1332(c). 

While the SAC’s introductory paragraph states, for example, that FMCNA is a “New

York corporation,” the SAC is silent on whether this “New York corporation” is a

corporation incorporated in New York or whether its principal place of business is in

New York or some other state, including California. By any measure, Plaintiff fails to

establish that CAFA jurisdiction is appropriate in this case. Without subject matter

3

jurisdiction the court cannot entertain any of the other arguments raised by the parties. 

See Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 523, U.S. 83, 94 (1998).

Finally, asthe court has previously advised Plaintiff, the court cannot determine

Plaintiff’s generalized allegation that the “Defendants” manage and control

1

each other is insufficient to pierce the corporate veil of the various entities. 

 The court incorporates its March Dismissal Order as if fully set forth herein. 2

The court also notes that it is unclear when Plaintiff commenced her

3

employment with Defendants. The SAC simply alleges that Plaintiff commenced

employment with one of the unidentified Defendants sometime within four years of

commencing the action. (SAC ¶43). Such obfuscation in pleading isinconsistent with

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

- 5 - 12cv2488

Case 3:12-cv-02488-JM-WMC Document 25 Filed 10/15/13 Page 5 of 6
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

from the inadequately pled SAC whether this action is one over which, in the interests

of justice, it should decline jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. §1332(d)(3), or one over which the

court is required to decline jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. §1332(d)(4). As Plaintiff has been

fully informed about the jurisdictional defects with the complaint, provided with an

opportunity to correct those defects, and failed to remedy the jurisdictional defects, the

court dismisses the SAC. The court declines to sua sponte grant leave to amend a

second time because the court has already fully informed counsel of the jurisdictional

deficiencies - all to no avail.

In sum, the court dismisses the SAC for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and

instructs the Clerk of Court to close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 15, 2013

 Hon. Jeffrey T. Miller

 United States District Judge

cc: All parties

- 6 - 12cv2488

Case 3:12-cv-02488-JM-WMC Document 25 Filed 10/15/13 Page 6 of 6