Moua v. International Business Machines Corporation et al

Filing 261

Order denying 132 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 2/26/2019. (ejdlc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/26/2019)

Download PDF
1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 SAN JOSE DIVISION 6 7 MAY MOUA, 8 9 Plaintiff, v. 10 INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION, et al., 11 United States District Court Northern District of California Case No. 5:10-cv-01070-EJD 12 Defendants. ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS AS TO PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS ON BEHALF OF PAGA MEMBERS JASON DRURY AND XIANZHAN LIN Re: Dkt. No. 132 13 14 15 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c), Defendants International Business 16 Machines Corporation (“IBM”), Joseph Koenig, and Venkatasubramaniam Iyer (collectively, 17 “Defendants”) move to dismiss without leave to amend Plaintiff May Moua’s representative 18 claims under California’s Private Attorney General Act (“PAGA”) on behalf of Jason Drury 19 (“Drury”) and Xianzhan Lin (“Lin”), two nonexempt employees of IBM. Dkt. No. 132. For the 20 reasons set forth below, Defendants’ motion will be denied. 21 I. 22 BACKGROUND In her 2010 Complaint, Plaintiff May Moua (“Plaintiff”) alleges that she and other 23 employees were misclassified as exempt from overtime and related pay requirements under 24 California Law. Dkt. No. 1. Plaintiff’s amended complaints also assert claims based on a 25 misclassification theory. Dkt. Nos. 45, 66. In the operative Second Amended Complaint 26 (“SAC”), Plaintiff asserts misclassification claims on behalf of herself and 25 others under PAGA. 27 Dkt. No. 6. 28 Case No.: 5:10-cv-01070-EJD ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS 1 During discovery Plaintiff learned that two PAGA members—Drury and Lin—had been 1 2 reclassified to nonexempt status prior to the start of the relevant time period. Dkt. No. 94 at 11. 3 Defendants seek dismissal of claims on behalf of Drury and Lin because the SAC alleges no facts 4 regarding nonexempt employees. 5 II. DISCUSSION 6 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) allows a party to move for judgment on the 7 pleadings “[a]fter the pleadings are closed—but early enough not to delay trial.” Judgment on the 8 pleadings is proper when “‘there is no issue of material fact in dispute, and the moving party is 9 entitled to judgment as a matter of law.’” Chavez v. United States, 683 F.3d 1102, 1108 (9th Cir. 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 2012) (quoting Fleming v. Pickard, 581 F.3d 922, 925 (9th Cir. 2009)). The standard for a Rule 12(c) motion is essentially the same as that for a Rule 12(b)(6) 12 motion. Id. Thus, a court must presume all facts alleged in the complaint are true and determine 13 whether the complaint demonstrates a plausible entitlement to a legal remedy. See Bell Atl. Corp. 14 v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-57 (2007) (discussing the standard for dismissal under Rule 15 12(b)(6)). 16 Here, it is undisputed that Drury and Lin were classified as nonexempt employees since 17 December 9, 2008. Dkt. No. 143 at 4-6. Nevertheless, Plaintiff contends that Defendants violated 18 Drury’s and Lin’s rights even after their reclassification; that the SAC, which incorporates 19 Plaintiff’s notice to the Labor Workforce & Development Agency (“LWDA”), provides 20 Defendants with sufficient notice of their claims; and that she may maintain PAGA claims on 21 Drury’s and Lin’s behalf even though her claims are based upon her exempt status and Drury and 22 Lin have nonexempt status. Dkt. No. 143. Should the court determine that the SAC does not 23 provide fair notice, Plaintiff requests leave to amend the LWDA notice and the SAC. 24 This court has already ruled that Plaintiff’s SAC and the LWDA notice are adequate to 25 state a claim as to Drury and Lin. Dkt. No. 64 at 7:1-14 (Order Granting Motion For Leave to File 26 Second Amended Complaint). With the benefit of hindsight, the court recognizes that the 27 allegations are thin: Plaintiff seeks to represent “employees on ‘claims that IBM violated various 28 Case No.: 5:10-cv-01070-EJD ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS 2 1 provisions of the California Labor Code as related to [Jason Drury and Xianzhan Lin.]’” Dkt. No. 2 143 at 13-14. Nevertheless, the SAC satisfies Rule 8 and at this stage in the proceedings, it is 3 preferable for efficiency’s sake to move past the pleading stage and focus instead on the merits of 4 any potential claim for relief Drury and Lin may have now that the evidence shows they are 5 nonexempt employees. 6 III. ORDER 7 For the reasons set forth above, Defendants’ motion (Dkt. No. 132) is DENIED. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 Dated: February 26, 2019 ______________________________________ EDWARD J. DAVILA United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case No.: 5:10-cv-01070-EJD ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS 3

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?