Valerie Penate et al V. Wyndham Worldwide Corporation, Inc. et al
Filing
28
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 20 by Judge Otis D. Wright, II . (lc) .Modified on 7/11/2016 (lc).
O
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
United States District Court
Central District of California
8
9
10
11
12
Case № 2:15-cv-09213-ODW(KSx)
VALERIE PENATE and RHONDA
HAMILTON,
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION TO DISMISS OR, IN THE
ALTERNATIVE, MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT [20]
Plaintiffs,
13
14
v.
15
16
17
WYNDHAM WORLDWIDE
OPERATIONS, INC. and LAMONT
ZACHMAN,
18
Defendants.
19
20
I.
INTRODUCTION
21
This is a whistleblower-retaliation action. Plaintiffs Valerie Penate and Rhonda
22
Hamilton allege that their employer, Defendant Wyndham Worldwide Operations,
23
Inc., wrongfully discharged them for complaining about unlawful sales practices
24
within the company. Defendant moves to dismiss the complaint, or in the alternative,
25
for summary judgment based on the fact that it did not employ Plaintiffs. For the
26
reasons discussed below, the Court DENIES the Motion. 1
27
28
1
After carefully considering the papers filed in support of and in opposition to the Motion, the
Court deems the matter appropriate for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b); C.D.
Cal. R. 7-15.
1
II.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
2
Defendant allegedly employed Plaintiff Valerie Penate as a program support
3
specialist between April 2013 and October 2014. (First Am. Compl. ¶ 9, ECF No. 15.)
4
During this time, Penate was told to treat certain customers more favorably than other
5
customers, and that she “reasonably believed [this] to be a fraudulent and illegal sales
6
practice.” (Id. ¶ 10.) Penate relayed this belief to her supervisor, and refused to
7
engage in the practice. (Id.) Penate was later terminated, allegedly based on her
8
reporting this illegal activity to her supervisor. (Id. ¶ 11.)
9
Defendant allegedly also employed Plaintiff Rhonda Hamilton as a frontline
10
member services representative between February 2010 and November 2012. (Id.
11
¶ 12.) Hamilton learned that Defendant was directing its employees to use fraudulent
12
and deceptive sales tactics to sell timeshares to customers, including misrepresenting
13
the costs and benefits of timeshare ownership. (Id. ¶ 13.) Employees who used these
14
tactics were treated (and compensated) better than those who did not. (Id. ¶ 14.) After
15
Hamilton complained to her supervisor about both the illegal sales tactics and the
16
disparate treatment and compensation, she was suspended. (Id. ¶¶ 14–17.) Hamilton
17
then sent a letter to Defendant complaining that her suspension was retaliatory. (Id.
18
¶ 18.) Defendant failed to respond, and Hamilton alleges that she was “constructively
19
terminated” from her job thereafter. (Id. ¶¶ 18–19.)
20
On November 28, 2015, Plaintiffs filed their Complaint. (ECF No. 1.) On
21
March 30, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), in which they
22
assert three claims against Defendant: (1) violation of the Dodd-Frank Act; (2) fraud;
23
and (3) negligent hiring, supervision, and retention. (ECF No. 15.) Shortly before
24
appearing in the case, Defendant informed Plaintiffs’ counsel that it was not Plaintiffs’
25
employer, and that the entity that employed Plaintiffs was Wyndham Vacation
26
Ownership. (Kapur Decl. ¶¶ 3–7, ECF No. 20-2.) Despite this fact, Plaintiffs’ counsel
27
refused to dismiss Defendant. (Id.) On May 11, 2016, Defendant filed the instant
28
Motion. (ECF No. 20.) Plaintiffs timely opposed, and Defendant timely replied.
2
1
(ECF Nos. 25, 26.) That Motion is now before the Court for consideration.
2
III.
LEGAL STANDARD
3
A court may dismiss a complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) for lack of a cognizable
4
legal theory or insufficient facts pleaded to support an otherwise cognizable legal
5
theory. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). To
6
survive a dismissal motion, a complaint need only satisfy the minimal notice pleading
7
requirements of Rule 8(a)(2)—a short and plain statement of the claim. Porter v.
8
Jones, 319 F.3d 483, 494 (9th Cir. 2003). In making this determination, however, the
9
court’s review is limited to the pleadings, any documents incorporated by reference in
10
the complaint, and any matters of which the Court may take judicial notice. Lee v.
11
City of L.A., 250 F.3d 668, 688–89 (9th Cir. 2001).
12
“If, on a motion under Rule 12(b)(6) or 12(c), matters outside the pleadings are
13
presented to and not excluded by the court, the motion must be treated as one for
14
summary judgment under Rule 56.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(d). In general, submitting a
15
declaration in support of a motion under Rule 12(b)(6) will trigger this rule. Anderson
16
v. Angelone, 86 F.3d 932, 934 (9th Cir. 1996); see also, e.g., Cycle Barn, Inc. v. Arctic
17
Cat Sales Inc., 701 F. Supp. 2d 1197, 1203 (W.D. Wash. 2010); Chung v. Strategic
18
Decisions Grp., No. CIV.08-1480-ST, 2009 WL 1117492, at *2 (D. Or. Apr. 23,
19
2009).
20
Summary judgment should be granted if there is no genuine dispute as to any
21
material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R.
22
Civ. P. 56(a). The moving party bears the initial burden of establishing the absence of
23
a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323–24
24
(1986). Once the moving party has met its burden, the nonmoving party must go
25
beyond the pleadings and identify specific facts through admissible evidence that
26
show a genuine dispute for trial. Id.; Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c).
27
A disputed fact is “material” where the resolution of that fact might affect the
28
outcome of the suit under the governing law. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477
3
1
U.S. 242, 248 (1968). Conclusory or speculative testimony in affidavits and moving
2
papers is insufficient to raise genuine issues of fact and defeat summary judgment.
3
Thornhill’s Publ’g Co. v. GTE Corp., 594 F.2d 730, 738 (9th Cir. 1979). Moreover,
4
there must be more than a mere scintilla of contradictory evidence. Addisu v. Fred
5
Meyer, 198 F.3d 1130, 1134 (9th Cir. 2000). Where the moving and nonmoving
6
parties’ versions of events differ, courts are required to view the facts and draw
7
reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Scott v.
8
Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 378 (2007). A court may not weigh conflicting evidence or
9
make credibility determinations. Soremekun v. Thrifty Payless, Inc., 509 F.3d 978,
10
984 (9th Cir. 2007).
11
IV.
DISCUSSION
12
Defendant’s entire Motion rests on the declaration of an employee stating that
13
Defendant did not employ either Penate or Hamilton. (Lee Decl. ¶¶ 3–4; Mot. 4.)
14
Despite Defendant’s unsupported arguments to the contrary (Mot. 4 n.1), the Court
15
clearly cannot consider such a declaration on a motion to dismiss, e.g., Anderson, 86
16
F.3d at 934; Cycle Barn, Inc., 701 F. Supp. 2d at 1203; Chung, 2009 WL 1117492, at
17
*2, and thus the Court treats this Motion as one for summary judgment. Fed. R. Civ.
18
P. 12(d). The Court will analyze each claim accordingly.
19
1.
20
Under the Dodd-Frank Act, an “employer” may not retaliate against an
21
employee for, inter alia, exposing any unlawful business practices within the
22
company. 15 U.S.C. § 78u-6(h)(1)(A). Defendant argues that it was not Plaintiffs’
23
“employer,” and thus is not liable under the Act. (Mot. 4.) Defendant supports this
24
argument with a two-paragraph declaration stating that “[a]t no point did Wyndham
25
Worldwide Operations, Inc. employ Rhonda Hamilton [or Valerie Penate.]” (Lee
26
Decl. ¶¶ 3–4.) Plaintiffs oppose Defendant’s motion on several grounds, one of which
27
is that Defendant may nevertheless be liable under the “joint employer” doctrine.
28
(Opp’n 9–10.) That doctrine, derived from Title VII cases, provides that “[t]wo or
Dodd-Frank Act
4
1
more employers may be considered ‘joint employers’ if both employers control the
2
terms and conditions of employment of the employee.” E.E.O.C. v. Pac. Mar. Ass’n,
3
351 F.3d 1270, 1275 (9th Cir. 2003). Courts are required to evaluate the following
4
eight factors in deciding whether or not a company qualifies for joint employer status:
5
(1) The degree of the alleged employer’s right to control the manner in
which the work is to be performed; (2) The alleged employee’s
opportunity for profit or loss depending upon the alleged employee’s
managerial skill; (3) The alleged employee’s investment in equipment or
materials required for the alleged employee’s task, or the employee’s
employment of helpers; (4) Whether the service rendered requires a
special skill; (5) The degree of permanence of the working relationship;
(6) Whether the service rendered is an integral part of the alleged
employer’s business; (7) Ownership of property or facilities where work
occurred; and (8) Whether responsibility under the contracts between a
labor contractor and an employer passes from one labor contractor to
another without material changes.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Id.
15
To support their “joint employer” argument, Plaintiffs submit a declaration by
16
Penate stating that she was in fact employed by Defendant. (Penate Decl. ¶¶ 1–5,
17
ECF No. 25-3.)
18
Penate’s employer identification number contain the letters “WW”—which Plaintiffs
19
contend stands for “Wyndham Worldwide.” (Id., Ex. A.) Finally, Plaintiffs argue that
20
future discovery will likely uncover additional evidence showing that Defendant is a
21
joint employer of Plaintiffs. (Opp’n 11.) In response, Defendant concedes that Dodd-
22
Frank allows for joint employer liability, but contends that the facts show that it never
23
controlled the terms and conditions of Plaintiffs’ employment. (Reply 4.)
Plaintiffs also submit Penate’s termination letter showing that
24
The Court declines to rule on the issue at this time pursuant to Federal Rule of
25
Civil Procedure 56(d). Under Rule 56(d), the Court may deny a motion for summary
26
judgment where the opposing party “cannot present facts essential to justify its
27
28
5
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d)(1).2
1
opposition.”
Here, the case is still in its infancy—
2
Defendant has not yet answered the FAC, and Plaintiffs have not had an opportunity
3
to conduct any discovery.
4
employer” of Plaintiffs is particularly fact-intensive, and that the evidence needed to
5
establish the joint employer doctrine is most likely in Defendant’s possession, the
6
Court concludes that the parties should conduct discovery before the Court addresses
7
the merits of the doctrine.
Given that the issue whether Defendant is a “joint
8
2.
9
The Court denies Defendant’s Motion with respect to the fraud claim. “The
10
elements of fraud . . . are (a) misrepresentation (false representation, concealment, or
11
nondisclosure); (b) knowledge of falsity (or ‘scienter’); (c) intent to defraud, i.e., to
12
induce reliance; (d) justifiable reliance; and (e) resulting damage.” Lazar v. Superior
13
Court, 12 Cal. 4th 631, 638 (1996) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).
14
Plaintiffs’ theory of fraud is that Defendant falsely represented to them that they
15
would be permitted to work in a lawful environment, and that they relied on this
16
misrepresentation in agreeing to work for Defendant. (FAC ¶¶ 36–41.) Defendant
17
again asserts that it cannot be held liable for this claim if it is not Plaintiffs’ employer.
18
(Mot. 4.)
19
relationship between Defendant and Plaintiffs; all that matters is that Defendant
20
allegedly made a misrepresentation to Plaintiffs, and there is no reason why a non-
21
employer could not have made that misrepresentation to them.
Fraud
Yet Plaintiffs’ theory of liability does not require an employment
22
3.
23
Plaintiffs allege that Defendant was negligent in hiring and retaining employees
24
that engaged in illegal sales practices. (FAC ¶¶ 44–47.) “An employer may be liable
25
26
27
28
Negligent Hiring
2
The Court notes that Rule 56(d) generally requires the opposing party to submit an affidavit
attesting to the reasons why it cannot present facts to justify its opposition, and that Plaintiffs did not
do so here. Nevertheless, Plaintiffs made clear in their Opposition the fact that it could not produce
further evidence because discovery has not yet opened. (Opp’n 11.) In light of the general
confusion caused by Defendant’s composite motion, see infra pp. 7–8, the Court concludes that
Plaintiffs’ failure to put its reasons in an affidavit is not fatal to its request.
6
1
to a third person for the employer’s negligence in hiring or retaining an employee who
2
is incompetent or unfit.” Phillips v. TLC Plumbing, Inc., 172 Cal. App. 4th 1133,
3
1139 (2009). Defendant’s conclusory assertion that it is not liable for this claim
4
because it was not Plaintiffs’ employer also fails. (Mot. 4.) As Plaintiffs point out, an
5
employment relationship between Plaintiffs and Defendant is not required for this
6
claim. (Opp’n 9.) The negligent hiring is of Plaintiffs’ colleagues and supervisors,
7
not of Plaintiffs themselves. Thus, the Court also denies the Motion with respect to
8
the negligent hiring claim.
9
V.
CONCLUSION
10
For the reasons discussed above, the Court DENIES Defendant’s Motion.
11
(ECF No. 20.) The Court also wishes to say a word about the practice of filing
12
“motions to dismiss, or in the alternative, summary judgment.”
13
Scheduling and Case Management Order explicitly discourages this practice. The two
14
motions serve distinct purposes: the former challenges the allegations in the
15
complaint, and the latter challenges the evidence supporting the claims. There is
16
rarely an instance where it is unclear whether the evidence or the allegations are at
17
issue, and thus composite motions are almost always unnecessary. Here, for example,
18
there was absolutely no reason to frame this Motion as one to dismiss. The sole basis
19
on which Defendant moved to dismiss was a declaration it submitted attesting to the
20
fact that it did not employ Plaintiffs. Such evidence clearly cannot be considered on a
21
motion to dismiss, and thus this motion was always one for summary judgment.
This Court’s
22
This Motion also demonstrates how such composite motions often result in
23
confused arguments that blur the distinction between the two types of motions. First,
24
because Defendant tried to avoid as much as possible the fact that its Motion was
25
really one for summary judgment, Defendant did not show that it met the standard for
26
granting summary judgment; indeed, it did not even cite the summary judgment
27
standard in its papers. Second, it created confusion for Plaintiffs, who apparently did
28
not realize that the Motion was alternatively one for summary judgment, but who
7
1
nevertheless produced their own evidence in an attempt to rebut the evidence that
2
Defendant presented. Plaintiffs also made muddled arguments such as requesting
3
leave to amend to add allegations that overcome the evidence submitted by Defendant,
4
and requesting leave to amend based on Plaintiffs’ lack of access to Defendant’s
5
employment records at this early stage of the proceedings.
6
If this were not bad enough, Defendant then tried to rebut Plaintiffs’ evidence
7
with numerous factual statements in its reply that had no support in either the
8
pleadings or in any evidence before the Court. Maybe Defendant was still clinging to
9
the hope that the Court would treat the Motion as one to dismiss, and it would be just
10
too much gall to submit yet another declaration while arguing with a straight face that
11
this is still a pleading challenge. Whatever the reason, the Court was left with a
12
hodge-podge of evidence and arguments, almost none of which made any sense.
13
Needless to say, the vehicle that Defendant chose to present its argument destroyed
14
whatever chance Defendant had of prevailing on it.
15
16
IT IS SO ORDERED.
17
18
July 11, 2016
19
20
21
22
____________________________________
OTIS D. WRIGHT, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
23
24
25
26
27
28
8
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?