Angeles et al v. US Airways, Inc.

Filing 38

ORDER by Judge Charles R. Breyer granting 28 Motion to Dismiss Second Cause of Action in Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint; denying 29 Motion for Reconsideration. (crblc4, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/26/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

No. C 12-05860 CRB

13

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR
PARTIAL DISMISSAL OF
PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED
COMPLAINT, DENYING MOTION
TO RECONSIDER

JOSEPH TIMBANG ANGELES, NOE
LASTIMOSA, on behalf of themselves and
12 on behalf of others similarly situated, and the
general public,
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Plaintiffs,
v.
US AIRWAYS, INC., and DOES 1 through
50,
Defendants.

/

Now before the Court are two motions filed by Defendant US Airways, Inc. The first
motion seeks dismissal of the second claim in Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint. MTD
(dkt. 28); Second Am. Compl. (dkt. 30) (“SAC”). The second motion seeks reconsideration
of Section III.A.2 of this Court’s Order of February 19, 2013. MTR (dkt. 29); Feb. 19 Order
(dkt. 23). Both motions are suitable for resolution on the papers. Civ. L.R. 7-1(b).
Defendant’s motion for partial dismissal could be more clear, but the Court takes it to
invoke the law of the case doctrine. See MTD at 5 (arguing SAC’s second claim is
“precluded” because it is based on a legal theory already dismissed by the Feb. 19 Order);
see also United States v. Phillips, 367 F.3d 846, 856 (9th Cir. 2004) (“The law of the case
doctrine precludes a court from reconsidering an issue that it has already resolved. Issues
that a district court determines during pretrial motions become law of the case.”); United

States. v. Alexander, 106 F.3d 874, 876 (9th Cir. 1997) (Absent certain conditions not

2

present here, “[f]ailure to apply the doctrine of the law of the case . . . constitutes an abuse of

3

discretion.”). The Court determines that the SAC’s second claim is barred by the law of the

4

case doctrine and therefore GRANTS Defendant’s motion to dismiss the SAC’s second

5

claim.1 The Court’s Feb. 19 Order held that Plaintiffs had conceded the validity of

6

Defendant’s asserted defenses to wage claims based on an alleged failure to pay wages for

7

missed or noncompliant meal periods. See Feb. 19 Order at 8-9. The SAC merely cloaks the

8

same facts in a new legal theory, one amenable to the same defenses that have already

9

prevailed. Thus, to win relief on the SAC’s second claim, Plaintiffs would have to relitigate

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

1

an issue the Court has already resolved, i.e., the validity of Defendant’s asserted defenses to

11

wage claims premised on unpaid meal periods. Doing so would offend “the salutory policy

12

of finality that underlies the rule.” Moore v. James H. Matthews & Co., 682 F.2d 830, 834

13

(9th Cir. 1982).

14

The same policy of finality leads the Court to DENY Defendant’s motion for

15

reconsideration. Defendant argues that its First Motion to Dismiss (dkt. 6) (“FMTD”) never

16

asserted the merits of a defense based on California Labor Code section 514. MTR at 3-4.

17

Not so. Defendant clearly raised the merits of that defense in its First Motion to Dismiss,

18

offering it as an “alternative basis for dismissal.” FMTD at 6 n.4. Contrary to Defendant’s

19

suggestion that the claim has not been subjected to the adversary process, Plaintiffs

20

responded to the argument, FMTD Opp’n (dkt. 15) at 10, and Defendant, in turn, replied,

21

FMTD Reply (dkt. 21) at 3 n.1. Further, Defendant has not made the showing required by

22

this Court’s local rule governing reconsideration. See Civil L.R. 7-9(b) (requiring specific

23

showing that moving party “did not know” of materially different law than that presented to

24

Court, despite “exercise of reasonable diligence”). On the contrary, Defendant represents

25

that it decided not to present that law to the Court – which necessarily implies knowledge of

26

the law. See MTR at 2.

27

///

28
1

The Court need not and does not reach Defendant’s preemption defense.
2

1

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion for partial

2

dismissal and DENIES Defendant’s motion for reconsideration. The Court VACATES the

3

hearing on these matters set for June 28, 2013.

4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6

Dated: June 26, 2013
7
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
G:\CRBALL\2012\5860\order granting 2d mtd, denying mot to reconsider.wpd
3

CHARLES R. BREYER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE