Curtis Johnson v. Serenity Transportation, Inc. et al

Filing 63

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO FILE A SUPPLEMENTAL SUBMISSION AND CONTINUING HEARING. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley on 1/12/2016. (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/12/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

CURTIS JOHNSON,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No. 15-cv-02004-JSC

v.
SERENITY TRANSPORTATION, INC., et
al.,
Defendants.

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO
FILE A SUPPLEMENTAL
SUBMISSION AND CONTINUING
HEARING
Re: Dkt. No. 59

12
13

Plaintiffs Curtis Johnson (“Johnson”) and Anthony Aranda (“Aranda,” and together

14

“Plaintiffs”) bring this putative class action against their employer, Defendants Serenity

15

Transportation, Inc. (“Serenity Transportation”), and its owner David Friedel (“Friedel”), as well

16

as alleged “Customer Defendants” Service Corporation International (“SCI”), SCI California

17

Funeral Services Inc. (“SCI California”), and the County of Santa Clara (the “County,” and

18

collectively, “Defendants”). (Dkt. No. 58.) The Court previously dismissed the claims against the

19

“Customer Defendants”—i.e., all entities other than Serenity Transportation and Friedel—

20

concluding that Plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”) had failed to allege sufficient facts

21

to plausibly infer the existence of joint employer status under either federal or California law.

22

Johnson v. Serenity Transp., Inc., --- F. Supp. 3d ----, No. 15-2004-JSC, 2015 WL 6664834, at

23

*22 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 2, 2015). Now pending before the Court is Defendants’ motion to dismiss all

24

claims against the Customer Defendants in the Fourth Amended Complaint (“FAC”) on the

25

grounds that the FAC still fails to allege a basis for joint employer liability. (Dkt. No. 59.)

26

In their opposition, Plaintiffs argued that Defendants’ motion to dismiss SCI and SCI

27

California would fail even if the joint employer allegations were not sufficient because Defendants

28

failed to challenge a separate, statutory basis for liability: California Labor Code Section 2810.3.

1

(See Dkt. No. 61 at 9-12.) Defendants’ reply advances a number of reasons why, in their view,

2

Section 2810.3 does not apply. (Dkt. No. 62 at 5-8.) “[C]onsideration of arguments raised for the

3

first time on reply would prejudice the plaintiff if he is not given an opportunity to respond.”

4

Bernard v. Donat, No. 11-cv-03414-RMW, 2012 WL 10138, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 2, 2012).

5

Accordingly, Plaintiffs shall have leave to file a supplemental submission by noon on January 19,

6

2016 addressing Defendants’ arguments against the application of Section 2810.3. In light of this

7

supplemental briefing, the hearing previously set for January 14, 2016 at 9:00 a.m. is

8

CONTINUED to January 21, 2016 at 11:00 a.m.

9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 12, 2016

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY
United States Magistrate Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2