Stevens v. Datascan Field Services, LLC, et al

Filing 17

ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 9/4/15 GRANTING 10 Motion to Dismiss. Amended complaint due within 10 days. (Manzer, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10
11
12

v.

14

16

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S
DISMISSAL MOTION

Plaintiffs,

13

15

No. 2:15-cv-00839-GEB-AC

CHARLENE STEVENS, suing
individually and by and on behalf
of all others similarly situated,
and the general public,

DATASCAN FIELD SERVICES LLC, a
Delaware Company d/b/a DATASCAN
FIELD SERVICES,
Defendant.*

17
18

Defendant moves for dismissal of Plaintiff’s putative

19

class action and collective action Complaint under Federal Rule

20

of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 12(b)(6), arguing Plaintiff’s claims

21

are

22

Plaintiff alleges in her Complaint: Defendant “had a consistent

23

policy

24

[m]embers to work in excess of eight (8) hours per day and/or

25

forty (40) hours per week without paying them full and proper

26

overtime

too

conclusory

of

to

requiring

compensation”

satisfy

the

[Plaintiff]

as

required

federal

and

by

the

the

pleading

standard.

[putative

federal

Fair

c]lass

Labor

27
*

28

The caption has been modified in light of the parties’ May 26, 2015
stipulation to dismiss certain defendants. (ECF No. 5.)

1

1

Standards Act (“FLSA”) and the California Labor Code; Defendant

2

“fail[ed]

3

[m]embers with mandatory rest periods . . . [and] mandatory meal

4

periods”

5

“fail[ed] to pay compensation . . . in a prompt and timely manner

6

to [Plaintiff] and the [putative c]lass [m]embers” as required by

7

the California Labor Code; and [Defendant] . . . fail[ed] to

8

provide

9

accurate . . . wage statements of the total number of hours each

10

of them worked . . .” as required by the California Labor Code.

11

(Compl. ¶ 10.) Plaintiff also alleges that Defendant’s failure to

12

pay

13

overtime pay and compensation for missed meal and rest breaks

14

constitutes

15

California Business and Professions Code. (Id. ¶ 141.)

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

to

as

provide

required

[Plaintiff]

Plaintiff

an

and

[Plaintiff]

by

and

the

unfair

the

the

California

[putative

putative

business

I.

and

class

the

[putative

Labor

c]lass

members

practice

Code;

c]lass

Defendant

[m]embers

the

with

referenced

proscribed

in

the

DISCUSSION

To survive a motion to dismiss, a plaintiff
asserting a claim to overtime payments must
allege that she worked more than forty hours
in a given workweek without being compensated
for the overtime hours worked during that
workweek . . . . A plaintiff may establish a
plausible claim by estimating the length of
her average workweek during the applicable
period and the average rate at which she was
paid, the amount of overtime wages she
believes she is owed, or any other facts that
will permit the court to find plausibility.

24

Landers v. Quality Communications, Inc. 771 F.3d 638, 644-45 (9th

25

Cir. 2014) (emphasis added). “As the [Ninth Circuit] explained in

26

Landers, [Rule] 8 . . . require[s] allegations indicating that a

27

plaintiff worked shifts during which she was harmed. Allegations

28

that speak only to class members generally are insufficient to
2

1

state a claim . . . .” Sanchez v. Ritz Carlton, No. CV 15-3484

2

PSG, 2015 WL 5009659 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 17, 2015) (emphasis added).

3

When deciding a dismissal motion the federal “court

4

must accept a complaint’s allegations as true[; however, this

5

tenant] is inapplicable to threadbare recitals of a cause of

6

action's

7

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 663 (2009).

elements,

supported

by

mere

conclusory

statements.”

8

None of Plaintiff’s claims are pleaded with

9

plausible factual allegations [evincing] that
[P]laintiff was the victim of . . .
[D]efendant’s alleged violations of the labor
laws . . . . [T]here are no allegations about
.
.
.
Plaintiff’s
[or
putative
class
members’] schedules to substantiate that they
worked . . . shifts that would trigger
overtime pay [or pay for missed meal and rest
breaks] . . . . [W]ithout factual allegations
about Plaintiff[’]s specific experiences, the
claims
against
Defendant[]
are
merely
‘conceivable,’ not ‘plausible.’

10
11
12
13
14
15
16

Sanchez, 2015 WL 5009659 at *2-3 (citing Dejesus v. HF Mgmt.

17

Servs.,

18

required to

19
20
21
22
23
24
25

LLC,

726

F.3d

28

90

(2d

Cir.

2013)).

Plaintiff

is

provide [sufficient] factual context that
. . . . nudge[s her] claim from conceivable
to plausible[;] and even though [P]laintiff
[is not required] to keep careful records and
plead [her] hours with mathematical precision
. . . [Plaintiff is required to use her]
memory and experience [when pleading a] claim
in federal court . . . and to draw on those
resources in providing [her] complaint[] with
sufficiently developed factual allegations.
Dejesus, 726 F.3d at 90.

26
27

85,

II.
Since
allegations

that

Plaintiff’s
are

CONCLUSION
Complaint

insufficient
3

to

consists
state

of

conclusory

plausible

claims,

1

Defendant’s

2

granted. Plaintiff has ten days from the date on which this Order

3

is filed to file an amended complaint addressing the referenced

4

deficiencies in her claims.

5

Dated:

motion

to

dismiss

all

September 4, 2015

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4

of

Plaintiff’s

claims

is