Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00556/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00556-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 29:206 Collect Unpaid Wages

---

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LIDIA ESTRADA, )

)

)

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

SIERRA VALLEY RESTAURANTS, INC.,)

)

)

)

Defendant. )

 )

1:10cv0556 LJO DLB 

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH

LEAVE TO AMEND

Plaintiff Lidia Estrada (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this

civil action for recovery of unpaid wages on March 31, 2010. She names Sierra Valley

Restaurants, Inc., a California corporation, as Defendant. 

DISCUSSION

A. Screening Standard

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the court must conduct an initial review of the

complaint for sufficiency to state a claim. The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof

if the court determines that the action is legally “frivolous or malicious,” fails to state a claim

upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune

from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). If the court determines that the complaint fails to state

a claim, leave to amend may be granted to the extent that the deficiencies of the complaint can be

cured by amendment.

1

Case 1:10-cv-00556-LJO-DLB Document 6 Filed 04/12/10 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

B. Failure to State a Claim

A complaint, or portion thereof, should only be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon

which relief may be granted if it appears beyond doubt that plaintiff can prove no set of facts in

support of the claim or claims that would entitle him to relief. See Hishon v. King & Spalding,

467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984), citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957); see also Palmer v.

Roosevelt Lake Log Owners Ass'n, 651 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1981). In reviewing a

complaint under this standard, the court must accept as true the allegations of the complaint in

question, Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hospital Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976), construe the

pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and resolve all doubts in the plaintiff's favor. 

Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969).

C. Allegations

According to the complaint, Plaintiff alleges that she worked as a food preparer for Jack

In The Box from November 13, 2003, through August 24, 2009. After she quit working there,

she cashed a few checks that she had received as payment from Jack In The Box. A week later,

she received a letter from her bank stating that the checks had bounced. 

Plaintiff contacted her former manager, Michelle Arellano, and requested contact

information to claim her wages. Ms. Arrellano said she would take care of the matter. Months

went by and Plaintiff did not receive any response from the company and did not receive the

money that she was owed. 

Plaintiff alleges that she filed a complaint with the U.S. Department of Labor on February

8, 2010. The Department reportedly told her that Jack In The Box, which was “under Sierra

Valley Restaurants, Inc., had filed bankruptcy.” Complaint, p. 2. Plaintiff seeks recovery of

unpaid wages and California Labor Code penalties in the total amount of $2,659.88. 

According to documents submitted in the instant action, Plaintiff filed a complaint against

Sierra Valley Restaurants, Inc., a California corporation dba Jack In The Box, with the Labor

Commissioner of the State of California, Department of Industrial Relations, Division of Labor

Standards Enforcement. On March 23, 2010, the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement

informed Plaintiff that Sierra Valley Restaurants, Inc. had filed for bankruptcy protection and the

2

Case 1:10-cv-00556-LJO-DLB Document 6 Filed 04/12/10 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

Division had no jurisdiction. She was directed to file a claim with the United States Bankruptcy

Court. Attachments to Complaint. 

D. Discussion

The Federal Courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. Unlike the state courts, there is no

inherent or general subject matter jurisdiction. The Federal Court can adjudicate only those cases

that the Constitution and Congress authorize them to adjudicate which are essentially those

involving diversity of citizenship, or a federal question, or to which the United States is a party. 

Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. Of America, 511 U.S. 375 (1994). Plaintiff has not alleged

any basis for Federal Court jurisdiction in the present case. Plaintiff has not alleged the

deprivation of a federal constitutional or statutory right. Instead, she has identified state law as

the basis of her claims, citing California Labor Code provisions. Plaintiff also has not alleged

diversity of citizenship of the parties. However, Plaintiff will be given an opportunity to file an

amended complaint curing this deficiency and to establish this Court’s jurisdiction. 

Insofar as Plaintiff brings this action based on the Court’s original jurisdiction over civil

proceedings arising under, arising in or related to Defendant’s bankruptcy case, Plaintiff has not

demonstrated that she is entitled to do so. 28 U.S.C.§ 1334. Generally, the filing of a

bankruptcy petition stays any act to collect, assess or recover a claim against the debtor that arose

before the commencement of the bankruptcy case. 11 U.S.C. § 362(a). Plaintiff does not

indicate whether her claims arose prior to Defendant’s bankruptcy filing and/or whether she has

obtained relief from the automatic stay from the Bankruptcy Court. Moreover, Plaintiff does not

indicate whether or not she has filed her claim for unpaid wages with the Bankruptcy Court. To

the extent that Plaintiff intends to pursue her claims in the Bankruptcy Court, she is directed to

notify this Court in writing of her withdrawal of this action. 

E. Amended Complaint

Plaintiff will be given an opportunity to amend her complaint to cure the deficiencies

identified by the Court. In amending her complaint, Plaintiff is informed that the Court cannot

refer to a prior pleading in order to make her amended complaint complete. Local Rule 220

requires that an amended complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. 

3

Case 1:10-cv-00556-LJO-DLB Document 6 Filed 04/12/10 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

This is because, as a general rule, an amended complaint supercedes the original complaint. See

Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Once Plaintiff files an amended complaint, the

original pleading no longer serves any function in the case. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED

WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. Plaintiff may file an amended complaint within thirty (30) days of

the date of service of this order. Plaintiff’s complaint should be clearly titled, “First Amended 

Complaint,” and shall refer to the case number assigned to this action. Her complaint shall

comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. It must contain a short and plain statement of her claims, must

clearly set forth the causes of action alleged against Defendant and must set forth the basis of this

Court’s jurisdiction. If Plaintiff does not file an amended complaint within this time frame and

in accordance with this order, the Court will recommend that this action be dismissed. In the

alternative, if Plaintiff intends to pursue her claims in the Bankruptcy Court, she should notify

this Court in writing within thirty (30) days. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: April 12, 2010 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

4

Case 1:10-cv-00556-LJO-DLB Document 6 Filed 04/12/10 Page 4 of 4