Carroll v. Wells Fargo & Company et al
Filing
50
ORDER by Judge Edward M. Chen granting in part and denying in part 44 Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (emclc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/2/2015)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
KELLY CARROLL,
Plaintiff,
8
WELLS FARGO & COMPANY, et al.,
Docket No. 44
Defendants.
11
12
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO DISMISS
v.
9
10
Case No. 15-cv-02321-EMC
13
Plaintiff Kelly Carroll has filed a wage-and-hour class action against Defendants Wells
14
15
Fargo & Company and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (collectively, “Wells”). Currently pending before
16
the Court is Wells’s motion to dismiss the first amended complaint (“FAC”). The thrust of the
17
motion is that Ms. Carroll has failed to make sufficient nonconclusory allegations to support any
18
claim for relief. The Court held a hearing on Wells’s motion on October 1, 2015. This order
19
memorializes the Court’s rulings.
20
(1)
Overtime claim. The motion to dismiss is denied as moot. Ms. Carroll stated at the
21
hearing that she could amend the currently operative complaint to allege greater specificity
22
as to workweek(s). Ms. Carroll has leave to so amend.
23
(2)
Minimum wage claim. The motion to dismiss is denied.
24
(3)
Rest break claims. The motion to dismiss is granted, but with leave to amend. Ms. Carroll
25
shall amend Count 3 (i.e., the claim that Wells failed to pay her for recorded breaks of 29
26
minutes or fewer) to clarify whether she is pleading a state claim, a federal claim, and/or
27
both, and the factual bases therefor. Ms. Carroll shall also amend Count 5 (i.e., the claim
28
that Wells denied her rest periods and required her to work during those periods) because,
1
as currently pled, it is conclusory and does not explain how she was not provided a rest
2
period.
3
(4)
Meal break claim. The motion to dismiss is granted in part and denied in part. The motion
4
is denied to the extent the claim is based on the allegation that Wells had a policy requiring
5
bank customers to be attended to and serviced in fewer than five minutes. The motion is
6
granted to the extent the claim is based on the allegation that Wells denied a second meal
7
break. Ms. Carroll has leave to amend to explain how Wells failed to provide a second
8
meal break.
9
(5)
Derivative California Labor Code claims. These claims rise and fall with the substantive
claims.
10
(6)
Section 17200 claim. The claim raises and falls with the substantive claims.
12
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
11
(7)
Breach-of-contract claim. The motion to dismiss is denied as moot. Ms. Carroll may
13
include a breach-of-contract claim in her to-be-filed amended complaint. However, if Ms.
14
Carroll intends to keep this claim, then she must attach a copy of the handbook on which
15
she based the allegations in the currently operative complaint.
16
Ms. Carroll has until November 2, 2015, to file an amended complaint to address the
17
18
deficiencies identified above.
This order disposes of Docket No. 44.
19
20
IT IS SO ORDERED.
21
22
23
24
Dated: October 2, 2015
______________________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge
25
26
27
28
2
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?