Shaw et al v. Wizards of the Coast, LLC

Filing 79

ORDER granting 75 Motion to Dismiss with leave to amend. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 9/6/2018. (ejdlc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/6/2018)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6

SAN JOSE DIVISION

7
8

ADAM SHAW, et al.,

Case No. 5:16-cv-01924-EJD

Plaintiffs,
9

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
DISMISS WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

v.
10
11

WIZARDS OF THE COAST, LLC,

Re: Dkt. No. 75

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Defendant.
12
13

Defendant Wizards of the Coast (“Defendant”) moves to dismiss the Second Amended

14

Complaint (“Complaint”) for failure to state a claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules

15

of Civil Procedure. The Complaint includes a total of ten causes of action predicated on alleged

16

violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), California Labor Code, and the California

17

Business & Professions Code. Defendant contends that the Complaint fails to allege that any of

18

the nineteen Plaintiffs were employed by or otherwise performed work for Defendant in the state

19

of California, and such omission is fatal to the second through tenth causes of action brought

20

under California law. See, e.g., O’Connor v. Uber Technologies, Inc., 58 F. Supp. 3d 989, 1004-

21

07 (N.D. Cal. 2014) (under California law, a presumption exists against the extraterritorial

22

application of state law). Defendant also contends that only one of the nineteen Plaintiffs alleges

23

that he performed work for Defendant in the United States, and therefore the FLSA claim must be

24

dismissed. See 29 U.S.C. § 213(f) (FLSA not applicable to employment in foreign countries and

25

certain U.S. territories); Truman v. DeWolff, Boberg & Assocs., Inc., No. 07-1702, 2009 WL

26

2015126, at *1 (W.D. Pa. July 7, 2009) (“The FLSA expressly exempts from its overtime

27

requirements work performed by an employee outside of the United States.”). Finally, Defendant

28

Case No.: 5:16-cv-01924-EJD
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS WITH LEAVE TO AMEND
1

1

contends that the Complaint fails to satisfy Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because

2

each of the nineteen Plaintiffs attempt to maintain all ten causes of action against Defendant

3

through conclusory allegations that refer to “Plaintiffs” collectively without specific allegations

4

plausibly stating a claim for relief as to each of them.

5

In response, Plaintiffs request leave to amend the Complaint pursuant to Rule 15 of the

6

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to include specific allegations regarding the location of work

7

performed on Defendant’s behalf by each named Plaintiff. Plaintiffs represent that they

8

“do not intend to add new parties or claims, but merely to satisfy pleading standards for the

9

currently plead claims.” Dkt. No. 76, p.3.

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Based upon the foregoing, Defendant’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED with leave to
amend. Plaintiffs shall file and serve an amended complaint no later than September 28, 2018.

12
13
14
15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 6, 2018
______________________________________
EDWARD J. DAVILA
United States District Judge

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Case No.: 5:16-cv-01924-EJD
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS WITH LEAVE TO AMEND
2