Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00411/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00411-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DENNIS BICEK, individually, and on 

behalf of other members of the general 

public similarly situated, and on behalf 

of aggrieved employees pursuant to 

the Private Attorneys General Act,

Plaintiff,

v.

C&S WHOLESALE GROCERS, INC.,

a Vermont corporation; TRACY 

LOGISTICS, LLC, an unknown 

business entity; and DOES 1 through 

100, inclusive,

Defendants.

No. 2:13-cv-00411-MCE-KJN

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Through this action, Plaintiff Dennis Bicek (“Plaintiff”) seeks relief from 

Defendants C&S Wholesale Grocers, Inc. (“C&S”), and Tracy Logistics, LLC (“Tracy 

Logistics”) (collectively “Defendants”) for violations of California state law. On 

December 10, 2012, Plaintiff filed a Class Action Complaint in the Superior Court of 

California, County of Sacramento, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated.

///

///

///

Case 2:13-cv-00411-MCE-KJN Document 41 Filed 07/25/13 Page 1 of 5
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

Plaintiff alleges violations of: (1) California Labor Code § 1194 for unpaid minimum and 

overtime wages; (2) the California Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act, Cal. Labor 

Code § 2698, et seq.; and (3) violations of California’s unfair competition law, Cal. Bus. & 

Prof. Code §§ 17200-17207. 

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Portions of Defendant’s 

Answer pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f).

1

 (Pl.’s Mot. Strike, Mar. 14, 

2013, ECF No. 9.) Defendants filed a timely opposition to the motion. (Defs.’ Opp’n, 

Apr. 4, 2013, ECF No. 14.) For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike is 

DENIED.2

BACKGROUND3

Plaintiff brings the present action on behalf of himself and other current and 

former warehouse supervisors at Defendant C&S’s warehouses in California. Plaintiff’s 

proposed class includes warehouse supervisors who worked for Defendant from 

February 3, 2007, to final judgment in this case. Defendants employed Plaintiff as a 

warehouse supervisor, which is an “exempt” salaried position, from approximately 

November 2007 to December 2011, in Sacramento County. Defendants hired Plaintiff

and misclassified him as an “exempt” employee, and paid him on a salary basis, without 

any compensation for overtime hours worked, missed meal periods, or rest breaks. 

According to Plaintiff, Defendants engaged in a uniform policy and systematic scheme of 

wage abuse against their warehouse supervisors. 

///

 1 All further references to “Rule” or “Rules” are to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure unless 

otherwise noted.

2 Because oral argument will not be of material assistance, the Court orders this matter submitted 

on the briefs. E.D. Cal. Local R. 230(g).

3 The following recital of facts is taken, sometimes verbatim, from Plaintiff’s Class Action 

Complaint. (Pl.’s Compl. Attached to Defs.’ RJN, ECF No. 1-1.)

Case 2:13-cv-00411-MCE-KJN Document 41 Filed 07/25/13 Page 2 of 5
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

This alleged scheme involved misclassifying warehouse supervisors as “exempt” for 

purposes of payment of overtime compensation, when in fact these employees were 

“non-exempt” under California law. 

Plaintiff and other class members worked over eight hours per day and/or more 

than forty hours per week during the course of their employment with Defendants. 

Furthermore, although Defendants knew or should have known that Plaintiff and putative 

class members were entitled to receive certain wages as overtime compensation, 

Plaintiff and putative class members did not receive such wages. Similarly, Plaintiff and 

putative class members did not receive all rest and meal periods that they were entitled 

to receive, nor did Plaintiff and the putative class members receive one additional hour 

of pay when a meal period was missed. Plaintiff also alleges that while Defendants 

knew or should have known that Plaintiff and putative class members were entitled to 

receive at least minimum wages as compensation, Plaintiff and putative class members 

did not receive at least minimum wages for all hours worked. Plaintiff and putative class 

members were also entitled to timely payment of all wages during their employment and 

to timely payment of wages earned upon termination, but did not receive timely payment 

of these wages either during their employment or upon termination. Plaintiff and putative 

class members likewise did not receive complete and accurate wage statements from 

Defendants, although Defendants knew or should have known that Plaintiff and putative 

class members were entitled to these statements. Defendants also failed to keep 

complete and accurate payroll records. Finally, Defendants falsely represented to 

Plaintiff and putative class members that the wage denials were proper. Instead, these 

wage denials were improper and served the purpose of increasing Defendants’ profits.

These claims were brought by a different plaintiff in a prior class action, 

Tompkins v. C&S Wholesale Grocers, Inc., which was initially brought in state court on 

February 3, 2011.4 

 4 All facts relating to the Tompkins action are taken from Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiff’s 

Motion to Remand. (ECF No. 14.)

Case 2:13-cv-00411-MCE-KJN Document 41 Filed 07/25/13 Page 3 of 5
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

On March 14, 2011, the defendants in the Tompkins action removed the case to federal 

court, asserting diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). The defendants 

did not assert CAFA jurisdiction in the Tompkins case. The plaintiff then moved to 

remand the case, on the grounds that the operative complaint alleged an amount in 

controversy below the $75,000 threshold. The Court granted the plaintiff’s motion to 

remand, finding that there was insufficient evidence to show that the amount in 

controversy for the plaintiff’s individual claims exceeded $75,000. The defendants again 

removed the case to federal court on October 26, 2011, based on discovery conducted 

prior to that date. The Tompkins plaintiff again moved to remand, and the Court again 

granted the plaintiff’s motion on the grounds that the defendants had not met their 

burden of proving that the amount in controversy on the plaintiff’s individual claims 

exceeded $75,000.

On June 15, 2012, after the case was remanded, the Tompkins defendants 

deposed the named plaintiff in that case, David Tompkins. On September 21, 2012, the 

defendants offered Mr. Tompkins a Joint Offer to Compromise under California Civil 

Procedure Code § 998(b)(2), in the amount of $75,001. Mr. Tompkins accepted the 

Joint Offer on October 3, 2012. The instant action was filed two months later on behalf 

of the same putative class.

ANALYSIS

Pursuant to Rule 12(f), Plaintiff moves to strike forty-six of Defendants’ fifty-eight

affirmative or additional defenses on the grounds that they are not pled with sufficient 

particularity. Plaintiff also moves to strike nine of Defendant’s affirmative defenses on 

the grounds that they do not constitute valid affirmative defenses.

Rule 12(f) provides that “the court may strike form a pleading an insufficient 

defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter. 

///

Case 2:13-cv-00411-MCE-KJN Document 41 Filed 07/25/13 Page 4 of 5
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

5

The court may act: (1) on its own; or (2) on motion made by a party either before 

responding to the pleading, or, if a response is not allowed, within 21 days after being 

served with the pleading.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f).

In this case, Defendants mailed their Answer to Plaintiff’s Complaint on 

February 7, 2013. (See Answer, ECF No. 1-1 at 52 (Proof of Service).) Rule 5(b)(2)(C) 

provides that service by mail is “complete upon mailing.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(2)(C). 

Thus, Plaintiff was served with Defendants’ Answer on February 7, 2013. Pursuant to 

Rule 12(f), Plaintiff’s motion to strike all or part of Defendants’ answer needed to be 

brought on or before February 28, 2013. However, Plaintiff’s motion to strike was 

brought on March 14, 2013—fourteen days late.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike is untimely and therefore is denied.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons just stated, Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike (ECF No. 9) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 23, 2013

Case 2:13-cv-00411-MCE-KJN Document 41 Filed 07/25/13 Page 5 of 5