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)
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?