Aguiar v. California Sierra Express Inc

Filing 33

ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 5/3/12 GRANTING California Sierra Express's Motion and DISMISSING this action against it WITH PREJUDICE. California Sierra Express's Motion to Strike Class Allegations is denied as moot. CASE CLOSED (Kastilahn, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6

Troy M. Yoshino, No. 197850
James W. Henderson, Jr., No. 71170
Billie D. Hausburg, No. 235193
CARROLL, BURDICK & McDONOUGH LLP
Attorneys at Law
44 Montgomery Street, Suite 400
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone:
415.989.5900
Facsimile:
415.989.0932
Email:
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

7
8

Attorneys for Defendant
CALIFORNIA SIERRA EXPRESS, INC.

9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
12
13

ANTHONY AGUIAR, individually,
and on behalf of all others similarly
situated,

14
15
16
17

Plaintiff,
v.
CALIFORNIA SIERRA EXPRESS,
INC., a Nevada corporation; DOES 1
through 50, inclusive

Case No. 2:11-cv-02827-JAM-GGH

ORDER GRANTING CALIFORNIA SIERRA
EXPRESS, INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS
PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
AND DISMISSING ACTION WITH
PREJUDICE

18
19

Defendants.
Hon. John A. Mendez

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
CBM-PRODUCTS\SF542820
ORDER DISMISSING ACTION WITH PREJUDICE—CASE NO. 11-CV-02827-JAM-GGH

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

1

On May 2, 2012, Defendant California Sierra Express, Inc.’s (“Defendant” or

2

“California Sierra Express”) Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint

3

(“FAC”) and Strike Class Allegations (Doc. # 25) came on for hearing before the

4

Honorable John A. Mendez.1 Defendant also submitted a Request for Judicial Notice in

5

Support of its Motion to Dismiss and to Strike (Doc. # 26). Plaintiff did not oppose

6

Defendant’s Motion or its Request for Judicial Notice, but requested leave to file a Second

7

Amended Complaint. See Doc. # 28 (Pl. Not. of Non-Opp’n). After reviewing all

8

documents in support of and in opposition to the Motion, the Court hereby GRANTS

9

California Sierra Express’s Motion and DISMISSES this action WITH PREJUDICE, and

10

without further leave to amend.

11

Plaintiff’s attempt to maintain a putative class action on behalf of former and current

12

employees of California Sierra Express for alleged violations of several provisions of the

13

California Labor Code as well as unfair business practices under the California Business

14

and Professions Code section 17200 (“UCL”) fails for the following independent reasons.

15
16

I.

17

THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION AUTHORIZATION ACT, 49 U.S.C. §
14501 ET SEQ. (“FAAAA”), PREEMPTS PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS
Congress enacted the FAAAA to preempt and eliminate burdensome state laws that

18

affect the interstate trucking industry. See 49 U.S.C. § 14501. The FAAAA thus

19

preempts laws that effectively “interfere[] with competitive market forces in the industry

20

as to routes, services, or pricing.” Am. Trucking Ass’ns, Inc. v. City of L.A., 660 F.3d 384,

21

397 (9th Cir. 2011).

22

All of plaintiff’s claims are related to California Labor Code provisions regarding

23

meal and rest breaks (or compensation and record-keeping relating to alleged “unpaid

24

wages for rest and meal periods”). See, e.g., FAC ¶¶ 32-34, 37-39, 43-43, 46-47 (Doc. #

25

23). California Sierra Express could not avoid these claims without significantly

26

impacting its trucking routes, services, and pricing. Among other things, the standards

27
28

1

Troy M. Yoshino appeared on behalf of Defendant; plaintiff’s counsel did not make an
appearance.
CBM-PRODUCTS\SF542820
1
ORDER DISMISSING ACTION WITH PREJDUICE—CASE NO. 11-CV-02827-JAM-GGH

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

1

plaintiff ultimately seeks to impose here would effectively bind California Sierra Express

2

to schedules and frequencies of routes that allow for “off-duty breaks ‘at specific times

3

throughout the workday in a way that would interfere with competitive market forces

4

within . . . the industry,’” and all of plaintiff’s claims are preempted. See Esquivel v.

5

Vistar Corp., 2012 WL 516094, at *5 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 8, 2012) (citing Dilts v. Penske

6

Logistics LLC, 819 F. Supp. 2d 1109, 1120 (S.D. Cal. 2011)). Plaintiff did not

7

demonstrate that he can overcome these preemption issues, and the Court finds that he

8

cannot do so. As such, the preemption argument Defendant makes is one reason to

9

dismiss plaintiff’s claims with prejudice, and without leave to amend.

10
11
12

II.

PLAINTIFF HAS FAILED TO STATE A CLAIM AGAINST CALIFORNIA SIERRA
EXPRESS FOR OTHER REASONS AS WELL
Plaintiff fails to allege facts sufficient to pass Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) scrutiny under

13

the principles set forth in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, ---, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (2009), and

14

Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007). Plaintiff has already amended his

15

complaint once, in lieu of responding to California Sierra Express’s earlier-filed motion to

16

dismiss (Doc. # 8), but he nonetheless continues to assert “threadbare, legal conclusions

17

that merely parrot the statutory requirements” of provisions of the California Labor Code

18

and the UCL. See Nelson v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc., Case No. 11-1334 JAM-CMK, 2011

19

WL 3568498 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 15, 2011). Because plaintiff’s FAC does not contain

20

sufficient factual matter alleging a plausible claim to relief, and because plaintiff already

21

has had an opportunity to amend in response to prior Rule 12 Motions by California Sierra

22

Express, dismissal with prejudice is now warranted. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1951.

23

III. AMENDMENT WOULD BE FUTILE

24

“Leave to amend is properly denied where amendment would be futile.” Cigarettes

25

Cheaper! v. State Bd. of Equalization, No. 11-00631-JAM-EFB, 2011 WL 2560214, at *2

26

(E.D. Cal. June 28, 2011); see also Johnson v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 834 F.2d 721, 724 (9th

27

Cir. 1987) (“[F]utility includes the inevitability of a claim’s defeat on summary

28

judgment.”). Amendment here is futile because plaintiff’s claims are subject to dismissal
CBM-PRODUCTS\SF542820
-2ORDER DISMISSING ACTION WITH PREJUDICE—CASE NO. CV-11-2077

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

1

on preemption grounds, the FAC relies only on threadbare allegations and legal

2

conclusions, and plaintiff cites no authority suggesting that California Sierra Express’s

3

Motion to Dismiss is without merit in any of the dispositive grounds it asserts.

4

Separately, plaintiff’s failure to properly request leave to amend is an independent

5

basis for dismissal with prejudice. Plaintiff neither attached the proposed amended

6

pleading nor lodged a proposed order in accordance with Local Rule 137(c). See Doc. #

7

28 (Pl. Not. of Non-Opp’n). Consequently, the Court cannot evaluate whether plaintiff

8

qualifies for leave to amend, and, under the circumstances here, any attempt to do so

9

would be “an exercise in futility” and create undue delay. See Himmelberger v.

10

Lamarque, 2008 WL 5234046, at *3-*4 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 15, 2008); see also Cigarettes,

11

2011 WL 2560214, at *2. Plaintiff’s FAC is thus dismissed with prejudice, and without

12

leave to amend.

13

IV. CONCLUSION

14

For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby GRANTS California Sierra Express’s

15

Motion and DISMISSES this action against it WITH PREJUDICE. California Sierra

16

Express’s Motion to Strike Class Allegations is denied as moot.

17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18
19

Dated: May 3, 2012

20
21

/s/ John A. Mendez__________
The Hon. John A. Mendez
Judge of the U.S. District Court

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
CBM-PRODUCTS\SF542820

-3-

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION WITH PREJUDICE—CASE NO. CV-11-2077

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com