Estrada et al -v US Postal Service

Filing 33

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS by Judge Paul S. Grewal granting 25 (psglc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/8/2015)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

8

SAN JOSE DIVISION

11

ROMULO ESTRADA, et al.,

12

Plaintiff,
v.

13
14

UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, et al.,
Defendants.

15

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 5:14-cv-03937-PSG
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
DISMISS
(Re: Docket No. 25)

16

In a dispute about overtime pay, Defendant United States Postal Service moves to dismiss

17

counts 1, 2 and 4 of Plaintiffs Romulo Estrada, Arellano Aspiras, Jr., Romelia Mejia and Maricor

18

Teano’s second amended complaint. Because the court finds that Plaintiffs’ claims fail as a matter

19

of law, USPS’s motion is GRANTED, but with limited leave to amend.

20

I.

21

This case is about a group of USPS employees who allege that they were denied overtime

22

pay in contravention of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiffs were employed as customer

23

service supervisors with USPS in Mountain View, California 1 and were classified as Executive and

24

Administrative Schedule (EAS)–17 employees for compensation purposes. 2 Plaintiffs were

25

required to work daily in excess of eight hours, instructed to work “off the clock” before and after

26

the scheduled shifts (“on average approximately 90 ‘off-the-clock’ minutes per day”), directed to

27

1

Docket No. 22 at ¶ 8

28

2

See Docket No. 22-1 at 25, 29, 33, 36.
1

Case No. 5:14-cv-03937-PSG
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS

1

submit false time records and were not paid for all hours worked. 3 Plaintiffs allege that they were

2

threatened with termination if they did not comply and such conduct caused stress that forced

3

Plaintiffs to retire early. 4

4

This suit followed. In March 2015, Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint, naming

5

USPS as the sole defendant. 5 The complaint alleges: (1) failure to pay overtime wages in violation

6

of the Fair Labor Standards Act; (2) breach of contract; (3) denial of benefits under the Family and

7

Medical Leave Act and (4) violations of the Postal Reorganization Act, the Civil Services Reform

8

Act and the Federal Tort Claims Act. 6 USPS now moves to dismiss counts 1, 2 and 4. 7
II.

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

9

This court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The parties further

11

consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and

12

Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a).

13

Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), “dismissal can be based on the lack of a cognizable legal

14

theory or the absence of sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable legal theory.” 8 If a plaintiff

15

fails to proffer “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face,” the complaint

16

may be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 9 A claim is facially

17

plausible “when the pleaded factual content allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that

18

the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” 10

19

3

See Docket No. 22 at ¶¶ 11, 13-20, 22.

20

4

Id. at ¶¶ 11, 24-25.

21

5

22

Docket No. 22. Because Plaintiffs’ SAC only names USPS as a defendant, the only plausible
understanding is that Plaintiffs’ allegations directed at Yoginder Singal fall within USPS’s alleged
liability.

23

6

24

7

25

See id.

In their opposition brief, Plaintiffs expressly do not oppose dismissal of count 4. Plaintiffs also
fail to address any argument as to count 2. As a result, counts 2 and 4 are DISMISSED as
unopposed.

26

8

Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).

27

9

Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).

28

10

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 663 (2009).
2

Case No. 5:14-cv-03937-PSG
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS

1

At this stage of the case, the court must accept all material allegations in the complaint as

2

true and construe them in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. 11 The court’s review is

3

limited to the face of the complaint, materials incorporated into the complaint by reference, and

4

matters of which the court may take judicial notice. 12 However, the court need not accept as true

5

allegations that are conclusory, unwarranted deductions of fact, or unreasonable inferences. 13

6

III.

7

Under the FLSA, some—but not all—employees must be paid a premium rate for hours

8

worked in excess of 40 hours per week. 14 The FLSA exempts certain employees from the overtime

9

pay requirement, including those “employed in a bona fide executive, administrative, or

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

professional capacity.” 15

11

The central dispute here is one of statutory interpretation. It is undisputed that Plaintiffs

12

hold EAS-17 positions, 16 rendering them “special exempt” employees under the Employee and

13

Labor Relations Manual. “Special exempt” employees are “career employees who are exempt

14

from the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) provisions, whose permanent assignments are to

15

EAS-15 through EAS-18 positions, and who directly supervise two or more equivalent bargaining

16

unit employees in production operations.” 17 Relying on an ELM chart, Plaintiffs argue that while

17

they are “special exempt” employees, they are still entitled under the FLSA to be paid additional

18

straight-time pay for hours worked in excess of forty hours in individual work weeks. 18 But this

19

11

See Metzler Inv. GMBH v. Corinthian Colls., Inc., 540 F.3d 1049, 1061 (9th Cir. 2008).

20

12

See id.

21

13

22

See Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors, 266 F.3d 979, 988 (9th Cir. 2001); see also Twombly,
550 U.S. at 561 (2007) (“a wholly conclusory statement of [a] claim” will not survive a motion to
dismiss).

23

14

See U.S.C. § 207.

24

15

See U.S.C. § 213(a)(1).

25

16

See Docket No. 22-1 at 25, 29, 33, 36.

26

17

27
28

ELM § 432.112(a)(2). The ELM is available online at
https://about.usps.com/manuals/elm/html/welcome.htm. The ELM is part of the Postal Service’s
regulations. See 39 C.F.R. § 211.2(a)(2).
18

See ELM § 434.141b.
3

Case No. 5:14-cv-03937-PSG
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS