Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01778/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01778-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 29:0206 FLSA: Minimum Wage

---

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

MAURICE JONES and LEONEL R.

LEON, on behalf of themselves and all

others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

CASE NO. 14cv1778-LAB (KSC)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART

AND DENYING IN PART

DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO

vs. DISMISS

SAN DIEGO METROPOLITAN TRANSIT

SYSTEM; SAN DIEGO TROLLEY, INC.;

and DOES 1–50,

Defendants.

Maurice Jones and Leonel R. León filed this putative class action against San Diego

Metropolitan Transit System and San Diego Trolley, Inc.—both public entities—alleging

violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and California labor laws. Defendants now

move to dismiss these claims.

I. Discussion

A. Legal Standards

A 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim challenges the legal sufficiency

of a complaint. Navarro v. Block, 250 F.3d 729, 732 (9th Cir. 2001). The Court must accept

all factual allegations as true and construe them in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs.

Cedars Sinai Med. Ctr. v. Nat'l League of Postmasters of U.S., 497 F.3d 972, 975

(9th Cir. 2007). To defeat Defendants' motion to dismiss, Plaintiffs' factual allegations need

not be detailed, but they must be sufficient to "raise a right to relief above the speculative

level . . . ." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007).

- 1 - 14cv1778

Case 3:14-cv-01778-LAB-KSC Document 11 Filed 08/13/15 Page 1 of 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

B. Analysis

Defendants argue that Plaintiffs' claims must be dismissed since: (1) Plaintiffs fail to

allege compliance with the California Government Claims Act (CGCA); (2) the lawsuit is

barred by res judicata and collateral estoppel; and (3) the collective bargaining agreement

requires arbitration.

1. CGCA Compliance

Under the CGCA, before suing a public entity for money or damages, a plaintiff must

first file a claim with the public entity. See State of CA v. Super. Ct. (Bodde), 32 Cal. 4th

1234, 1240–44 (2004). A plaintiff's complaint "must allege facts demonstrating or excusing

compliance with the claim presentation requirement." Id. at 1243.

While Plaintiffs don't dispute that Defendants are public entities, their complaint

doesn't allege CGCA compliance. Instead, they allege compliance for the first time in their

opposition to Defendants' motion to dismiss. But on a 12(b)(6) motion, the scope of review

is generally limited to the contents of the complaint. See Broam v. Bogan, 320 F.3d 1023,

1026 n.2 (9th Cir. 2003) ("In determining the propriety of a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal, a court

may not look beyond the complaint to a plaintiff's moving papers, such as a memorandum

in opposition to a defendant's motion to dismiss.") (internal quotation marks omitted).

Because the complaint doesn't allege CGCA compliance, Plaintiffs failed to allege a legally

sufficient claim. But since Plaintiffs may be able to allege compliance, the Court dismisses

the complaint with leave to amend. See, e.g., Randolph v. City of E. Palo Alto, 2007 WL

1232057, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 26, 2007).

2. Res Judicata and Collateral Estoppel

Defendants seek dismissal on res judicata and collateral estoppel grounds based on

an earlier state court action. But these defenses may not be raised in a motion to dismiss

unless they raise no disputed issues of fact. See, e.g., Scott v. Kuhlmann, 746 F.2d 1377,

1378 (9th Cir. 1984). It's not clear whether Plaintiffs were parties to that action, and Plaintiffs

contend they weren't. Since privity is a necessary element for both res judicata and collateral

estoppel to apply, see Allen v. McCurry, 449 U.S. 90, 94 (1980), and the factual record

- 2 - 14cv1778

Case 3:14-cv-01778-LAB-KSC Document 11 Filed 08/13/15 Page 2 of 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

before the Court on this motion is disputed, the Court denies Defendants' motion to dismiss

on res judicata and collateral estoppel grounds.

3. Arbitration

Defendants argue that Plaintiffs have failed to exhaust grievance procedures, which

require arbitration of any claims arising under their collective bargaining agreements (CBAs). 

But a CBA waives the right of a union member to pursue employment-related statutory

claims in court only when the waiver is "clear and unmistakable." Wright v. Universal

Martime Serv. Corp., 525 U.S. 70, 75, 80 (1998) (holding that arbitration clause which

provided for arbitration of "[m]atters under dispute," was not sufficiently clear to waive a union

member's right to file a claim under the ADA in a federal district court). Here, the CBAs are

"very general" and contain "no explicit incorporation" of statutory claims. Id. at 80. Plaintiffs

therefore need not arbitrate their statutory claims.

II. Conclusion

The motion to dismiss is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. This action is

DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. Any amended complaint alleging compliance with

the CGCA must be filed within TWO WEEKS OF THE DATE OF THIS ORDER.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 12, 2015

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

- 3 - 14cv1778

Case 3:14-cv-01778-LAB-KSC Document 11 Filed 08/13/15 Page 3 of 3