Romero v. Greenwich Logistics, LLC et al

Filing 55

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS; STRIKING IN PART OPPOSITIONS; AFFORDING PLAINTIFF LEAVE TO FILE THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT. The SAC is dismissed, with leave to amend. Any Third Amended Complaint shall be filed no later than December 17, 2021. Signed by Judge M. Chesney on November 18, 2021. (mmclc1 COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/18/2021)

1
2
3
4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

ARTURO ROMERO,
Plaintiff,

8
v.

9
10

GREENWICH LOGISTICS, LLC, et al.,
Defendants.

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 20-cv-09106-MMC
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS'
MOTIONS TO DISMISS; STRIKING IN
PART OPPOSITIONS; AFFORDING
PLAINTIFF LEAVE TO FILE THIRD
AMENDED COMPLAINT

12
13

Before the Court are two motions, filed September 20, 2021: (1) defendant

14

Greenwich Logistics, LLC's ("Greenwich") "Motion to Dismiss and/or Strike Plaintiff's

15

Second Amended Class Action Complaint"; and (2) defendant Amazon Logistics, Inc.'s

16

("Amazon") "Motion to Dismiss and/or Strike Plaintiff's Second Amended Class Action

17

Complaint." Plaintiff Arturo Romero ("Romero") has filed opposition to each motion,1 to

18

which each defendant has replied. Having read and considered the papers filed in

19

support of and in opposition to the motions, the Court rules as follows.2

20

In the operative complaint, the Second Amended Class Action Complaint ("SAC"),

21

Romero alleges that, for a four-week period in 2019, he was "employed as a delivery

22

driver for Defendants" (see SAC ¶ 19) and that, during such period, "Defendants" failed

23

to comply with various obligations set forth in the California Labor Code (see, e.g., SAC

24
25
26
27
28

1

Under the Local Rules of this District, an opposition "may not exceed 25 pages of
text." See Civil L.R. 7-3(a). Each of plaintiff's oppositions, however, consists of 33 pages
of text. Accordingly, the Court hereby STRIKES pages 26 through 33 of each opposition.
The Court notes, however, consideration of the stricken pages would have no effect on
the rulings set forth herein.
2

By order filed November 17, 2021, the Court took the matters under submission.

1

¶ 23 (alleging "Defendants" had "policy and practice" of "failing to reimburse [employees]

2

for necessary expenditures incurred in executing their duties under Defendants' employ").

3

In total, Romero asserts, on his own behalf and on behalf of a putative class, seven

4

claims under the California Labor Code, as well as a derivative claim under § 17200 of

5

the California Business & Professions Code.

6

Defendants, in their respective motions, argue all of Romero's claims are subject

7

to dismissal for failure to state a claim. In particular, Greenwich and Amazon argue, the

8

SAC fails to provide fair notice of the basis for the claims asserted against each of them,

9

due to Romero's use of multiple collective references to "Defendants" and failure to
separately identify any act or omission on the part of either Greenwich or Amazon

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

sufficient to support a cognizable claim. As set forth below, the Court agrees.

12

Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires a plaintiff to plead "factual

13

content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable

14

for the misconduct alleged." See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Numerous

15

district courts have found, and this Court agrees, that a plaintiff fails to plead sufficient

16

factual content to state a claim against a defendant where a complaint describes the

17

conduct of two or more defendants collectively and includes no factual allegations

18

identifying the conduct in which each defendant engaged. See, e.g., Williams v. Nichols

19

Demos, Inc., 2018 WL 11236757, at *3 (N.D. Cal. June 20, 2018) (dismissing complaint

20

wherein plaintiff asserted defendants were joint employers and alleged "Defendants"

21

engaged in acts but failed to "identify the particular party alleged to have so acted"; citing

22

district court cases dismissing similarly deficient complaints); Sanchez v. Green

23

Messengers, Inc., 2021 WL 5012150, at *2 (N.D. Cal. October 28, 2021) (holding Rule 8

24

"requires a plaintiff to differentiate allegations against multiple defendants"; dismissing

25

complaint as "deficient because it fail[ed] to differentiate between the two [named]

26

Defendants"); Eunice v. United States, 2013 WL 756168, at *3 (S.D. Cal. February 26,

27

2013) (holding "[l]umping all 'defendants' together" fails to "put a particular defendant on

28

notice" as to grounds on which claims are based).
2

Here, the only allegations in the SAC specific to any defendant are that Greenwich

1
2

is "a Delaware corporation doing business in the State of California" (see SAC ¶ 5) and

3

that Amazon is "a Delaware corporation doing business in the State of California" (see

4

SAC ¶ 6). All other references to Greenwich and Amazon, whether conclusory or factual,

5

are to "Defendants" (see, e.g., SAC ¶¶ 14, 19-28), and, the few instances in which the

6

SAC refers to conduct by an individual, e.g., allegations that a "supervisor told him 'you

7

need to multi-task and eat while you drive' [and] train[ed] him to eat his lunch while

8

driving" (see SAC ¶ 19), do not serve to clarify the ambiguity inherent in the above-

9

referenced collective allegations, as the reader is left to speculate as to which of the two

10

defendants employed such individual.
The SAC thus fails to provide either Greenwich or Amazon fair notice of the basis

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

of the claims made against it, and, accordingly, the SAC, in its entirety, is subject to

13

dismissal.3
As the Court previously has not dismissed either of the prior complaints filed by

14
15

Romero,4 the Court will afford Romero leave to amend. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2)

16

(providing courts "should freely give leave" to amend). In amending, Romero must cure

17

the above-described deficiency and may add additional factual allegations to address any

18

of the other arguments made by defendants. Romero may not, however, add any new

19

defendants or new claims, without first obtaining leave of court. See Fed. R. Civ. P.

20

15(a)(2).

21

//

22

//

23

//

24
25
26
27
28

3

In light of the above-discussed finding, the Court does not address herein the
additional grounds on which Greenwich and Amazon seek dismissal, nor does the Court
address herein their respective arguments that the class allegations should be stricken.
4

The SAC, like the First Amended Class Action Complaint, was filed pursuant to
the parties' stipulation allowing such amendment. (See Doc. No. 42; see also Doc. No.
23).
3

CONCLUSION

1
2

For the reasons stated above, defendants' motions to dismiss are hereby

3

GRANTED, and the SAC is hereby DISMISSED, with leave to amend. Any Third

4

Amended Complaint shall be filed no later than December 17, 2021.

5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6
7

Dated: November 18, 2021
MAXINE M. CHESNEY
United States District Judge

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4