Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-03380/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-03380-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Petition for Removal

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JIMMY ANDREW CONTRERAS,

Plaintiff, No. C 14-3380 PJH

v. ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

DISMISS AND MOTION TO STRIKE

PERFORMANCE FOOD GROUP, INC.,

et al.,

Defendants.

_______________________________/

Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss and motion to strike came on for hearing before this

court on March 18, 2015. Plaintiff Jimmy Andrew Contreras (“plaintiff”) appeared through

his counsel, Michael Morrison. Defendants Performance Food Group, Inc., Vistar

Transportation, LLC, and Performance Transportation, LLC (“defendants”) appeared

through their counsel, Matthew Kane. Having read the parties’ papers and carefully

considered their arguments and the relevant legal authority, the court hereby GRANTS

plaintiff’s motion to dismiss and motion to strike as follows.

Plaintiff is a former delivery truck driver who claims that he and other members of

the putative class were denied meal and rest breaks, and were compensated based on a

“piece-rate” formula that paid them only for time making deliveries, rather than all time

worked. Plaintiff asserts seven causes of action on behalf of the putative class: (1) failure

to pay meal and rest period compensation, (2) failure to pay compensation for all hours

worked and minimum wage violation, (3) failure to provide accurate wage statements, (4)

waiting time penalties, (5) failure to pay all wages by the appropriate pay period, (6)

penalties under the Private Attorney General Act (“PAGA”), and (7) unfair business

Case 4:14-cv-03380-PJH Document 53 Filed 04/07/15 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

practices under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200.

Defendants’ answer includes a single counterclaim against plaintiff and the putative

class, seeking rescission of the relevant employment contracts based on either the mutual

mistake of the parties or the unilateral mistake of defendants. 

As an initial matter, defendants have offered no authority for asserting a

counterclaim against putative class members. Indeed, courts within this circuit have held

that putative class members are not parties to an action prior to class certification. See,

e.g., In re TFT-LCD Antitrust Litigation, 2011 WL 1753784, at *4 (N.D. Cal. May 9, 2011); 

Saleh v. Titan Corp., 353 F.Supp.2d 1087, 1091 (S.D. Cal. 2004). Accordingly, until such

time as the absent class members are joined to this litigation, defendants may assert a

counterclaim only as to the named plaintiff. Plaintiff’s motion to strike the counterclaim to

the extent it is asserted against non-parties is therefore GRANTED. 

 Because defendants’ counterclaim may be asserted only against plaintiff

Contreras at this time, defendants must plead facts supporting their allegation that either

(1) Contreras and defendants had a mutual mistaken belief as to the legality of his wage

agreement, or (2) defendants had a unilateral mistaken belief as to the legality of their

wage agreement with Contreras, and Contreras was aware of defendants’

misapprehension at the time of contracting but failed rectify the mistake. As currently pled,

defendants offer wholly conclusory allegations regarding the putative class members’

(including plaintiff’s) state of mind. Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED. 

In the briefs, plaintiff’s counsel noted that plaintiff and the other class members are

not attorneys, and that “it is doubtful that they had any belief or understanding regarding

the lawfulness of the compensation plan(s) defendants unilaterally imposed upon them at

hire,” and that it is “equally doubtful they understood that the piece-rate method of

compensation covered all hours worked in accordance with state minimum wage laws.” 

Dkt. 49 at 8. While the court finds those arguments persuasive, it will, out of an abundance

of caution, allow defendants an opportunity to amend their counterclaim to allege sufficient

facts regarding plaintiff Contreras’ state of mind, either under a mutual mistake or unilateral

Case 4:14-cv-03380-PJH Document 53 Filed 04/07/15 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

mistake theory. Defendants shall have until May 5, 2015 to file an amended answer and

counterclaim, and plaintiff shall have 21 days after any such filing to answer or otherwise

respond to the amended counterclaim. No new counterclaims or parties may be added

without leave of court or the agreement of all parties. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 7, 2015 ______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:14-cv-03380-PJH Document 53 Filed 04/07/15 Page 3 of 3