Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-01889/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-01889-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 15:2(a) 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT E. BROCK, ET AL.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CONCORD AUTOMOBILE DEALERSHIP LLC,

ET AL.,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-cv-01889-YGR 

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS 

TO DISMISS WITH LEAVE TO AMEND;

CONTINUING CASE MANAGEMENT 

CONFERENCE

Re: Dkt. Nos. 43, 44

Plaintiffs, former employees of defendant Lexus of Concord and their spouses, initiated 

this action on April 24, 2014. (Dkt. No. 1.) Various defendants filed motions to dismiss on June 

16, 2014. (Dkt. Nos. 22, 23.) Thereafter, the Court granted stipulated requests allowing the 

motions to dismiss to be withdrawn and permitting plaintiffs to file an amended complaint. (Dkt. 

Nos. 27, 29.) Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint on September 9, 2014, asserting 

twenty six causes of action, against defendants Concord Automobile Dealership LLC d/b/a Lexus 

of Concord (“Concord”), Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A., Inc., Hank Torian, Patrick Miliano, and 

Greg James. (Dkt. No. 32 (“FAC”).) On December 22, 2014, defendant Miliano filed a motion to 

dismiss the FAC. (Dkt. No. 43.) That same day, defendants Concord, Torian, and James also 

filed motions to dismiss and strike. (Dkt. No. 44.) Plaintiffs oppose the motions. (Dkt. Nos. 45, 

47.)1 

 

1

In connection therewith, plaintiffs request the Court take judicial notice of a number of 

state court documents from actions initiated by certain plaintiffs resulting in civil restraining 

orders issued against Miliano. (Dkt. No. 46.) At this early stage, on a motion to dismiss, 

defendants have not challenged specific factual allegations in the complaint with contrary 

evidence, and plaintiffs have not explained how these documents are relevant to a determination of 

whether the specific factual allegations in the pleadings, taken as true, plausibly state a claim upon 

which relief can be granted. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. 

Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)).

Case 4:14-cv-01889-HSG Document 55 Filed 01/29/15 Page 1 of 4
2

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

Northern District of California

Having reviewed the papers submitted and the pleadings,2and good cause shown, the 

Court hereby GRANTS defendants’ motions to dismiss WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.

3

The complaint generally relates to alleged abuse of the “Spiff” sales bonus program by 

former Concord sales manager Miliano, whereby he would file false bonus forms in the names of 

various plaintiffs and take the bonus cash for himself (and possibly others), at the same time 

subjecting those employees to increased tax liability for funds they had in fact not received. (See, 

e.g., FAC ¶ 64.) It also alleges other improper conduct by Miliano such as use of racial epithets, 

bringing guns and swords into the workplace, and making threats of violence. (See, e.g., id. ¶¶ 37, 

85, 87.) Additionally, it alleges plaintiffs suffered retaliation for whistleblowing activity regarding 

Miliano’s conduct. (See, e.g., id. ¶ 33.) Causes of action include purported violations of Title VII 

of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, fraud and deceit, conversion, breach of the covenant of good faith 

and fair dealing, negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress, violations of various 

provisions of California’s Labor Code, and loss of consortium, among others. 

The FAC, which appears to be pled entirely “on information and belief,” is not a model of 

clarity. It falls far short of satisfying Rule 8 in a number of respects. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 

(requiring “short and plain” statements of the grounds for jurisdiction and of each claim “showing 

that the pleader is entitled to relief”). For instance, the FAC suffers from the following nonexhaustive list of deficiencies:

 The statement of jurisdiction (among other sections of the FAC) inexplicably 

includes long excerpts from the California code, confusingly embedding the actual 

claimed basis for jurisdiction in the midst of seemingly irrelevant material. (See, 

e.g., FAC ¶ 5.) 

 Certain claims indicate they are asserted only by some of the plaintiffs or only 

 

2

The Court has determined that the motion is appropriate for decision without oral 

argument, as permitted by Civil Local Rule 7-1(b) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78, and 

therefore VACATES the hearing scheduled for February 3, 2015. See also Lake at Las Vegas 

Investors Group, Inc. v. Pacific Malibu Dev. Corp., 933 F.2d 724, 729 (9th Cir. 1991).

3

Leave to amend is liberally granted. Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962); Chodos 

v. West Pub. Co., 292 F.3d 992, 1003 (9th Cir. 2002). 

Case 4:14-cv-01889-HSG Document 55 Filed 01/29/15 Page 2 of 4
3

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

Northern District of California

against certain defendants. Plaintiffs concede, however, that they failed to define

properly the relevant parties in all instances (e.g., the loss of consortium claim is 

intended to apply only as to plaintiff spouses, and other claims are not intended to 

apply as to plaintiff spouses, but this is not made apparent on the face of the 

complaint). (See, e.g., Dkt. No. 47 at 6 (“Plaintiffs will move, and hereby do move, 

this court for an administrative order permitting Plaintiffs to make an 

administrative amendment to the FAC to reflect that all causes of action, except the 

22nd, are claims of the Plaintiff-Employees or former employees of Defendant 

LOC.”).)

 Allegations are made generally as to “DEFENDANT EMPLOYERS” without 

clearly defining which defendants are intended to fall within that category.

 Allegations are made generally as to all “PLAINTIFFS” throughout the FAC in 

circumstances where they likely pertain only to plaintiff employees, but not their 

spouses. (See, e.g., FAC ¶ 81.)

 Conclusory allegations are made as to all plaintiffs, however the supporting 

specific factual allegations only concern certain, not all, plaintiffs.

 As apparently conceded by plaintiffs, certain other claims also fall short of

presenting the requisite clarity. (See, e.g., Dkt. No. 47 at 12-13 (“Though not pled 

explicitly, Plaintiffs’ seventh cause of action is supported by Civil Code section 

51.7. Should this court require it, Plaintiffs can amend to more explicitly state the 

seventh cause of action as a violation of the Ralph Act.”).)

Without further clarity, the Court will not waste judicial resources to analyze in detail all of

the legal issues raised by defendants when doing so would require making assumptions as to the 

scope of any particular cause of action. Therefore, in light of these issues and plaintiffs’ 

concessions, the FAC is dismissed and plaintiffs given leave to amend to correct these 

deficiencies. Plaintiffs should bear in mind that in the course of litigation, should this case 

proceed through motions for summary judgment and/or trial, much greater clarity is required, 

including as to which claim is brought by which plaintiff against which defendant.

Case 4:14-cv-01889-HSG Document 55 Filed 01/29/15 Page 3 of 4
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Accordingly, plaintiffs shall file a Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) within fourteen 

(14) days from the date of this Order. The SAC must not exceed 75 pages without permission 

from the Court and must comply with all applicable rules as to form. Plaintiffs are strongly 

cautioned to revise substantially their complaint and focus solely on the relevant factual 

allegations without unnecessary facts or legal argument. Any SAC must specify clearly which 

causes of action are asserted by which plaintiffs and against which defendants and which facts 

support each otherwise conclusory allegation. It must satisfy the requirements of Rule 8 and 

provide “a short and plain statement of [each] claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 (emphasis added). Additionally, allegations of fraud or fraudulent conduct must 

satisfy Rule 9(b)’s heightened pleading standard. Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b) (“In alleging fraud or 

mistake, a party must state with particularity the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake. 

Malice, intent, knowledge, and other conditions of a person’s mind may be alleged generally.”); 

see also Cooper v. Pickett, 137 F.3d 616, 627 (9th Cir. 1997) (To be alleged with particularity 

under Rule 9(b), a plaintiff must allege “the ‘who, what, when, where, and how’” of the alleged 

fraudulent conduct.)

Due to the FAC’s failure to clearly identify which claims are brought by which plaintiffs 

against which defendants, the SAC shall also include as an exhibit thereto a chart which clearly 

presents each cause of action and indicates which plaintiff(s) assert the cause of action against 

which defendant(s).

Defendants shall file their responses to the SAC within fourteen (14) days from when the 

SAC is filed.

In light of this Order, the Case Management Conference scheduled for February 3, 2015 is 

CONTINUED to March 30, 2015 on the Court’s 2 p.m. calendar.

This Order terminates Docket Nos. 43 and 44.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 29, 2015

______________________________________

YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

Case 4:14-cv-01889-HSG Document 55 Filed 01/29/15 Page 4 of 4