Claver v. Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage Company

Filing 13

ORDER Granting In Part and Denying In Part 6 Defendant's Motion to Dismiss: It is granted with respect to the first two causes of action for labor law violations, and denied with respect to the third cause of action. Plaintiff is granted LEAVE TO AMEND complaint with respect to the deficiencies discussed above. If Plaintiff chooses, he may add a cause of action for violation of California Labor Code Section 2802. The amended complaint, if any, shall be filed and served no later than 15 days after this order is stamped filed. Any response shall be filed and served as provided in Rule 15(a)(3). Signed by Judge M. James Lorenz on 3/25/2009. (mjj)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Civil No. 08cv817-L(AJB) ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS JASON CLAVER, individually and on 12 behalf of all others similarly situated and on behalf of the general public, 13 Plaintiff, 14 v. 15 COLDWELL BANKER RESIDENTIAL 16 BROKERAGE COMPANY, a California corporation, 17 Defendant, 18 _________________________________ 19 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Pending before the court is Defendant's motion to dismiss complaint pursuant to Federal 20 Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). For the reasons which follow, the motion is GRANTED IN 21 PART AND DENIED IN PART. Plaintiff is GRANTED LEAVE TO AMEND. 22 Plaintiff is a real estate salesperson and Defendant is a real estate broker. They entered 23 into a contract whereby Plaintiff was to list and sell residential real estate exclusively on behalf 24 of Defendant. Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging that Defendant violated California Labor Code 25 Sections 221 and 400 though 410 as well as the Industrial Welfare Commission ("IWC") Order 26 No. 4-2001 ("Wage Order 4-2001"). Defendant allegedly required him and others to purchase 27 automobile and professional liability insurance in order to indemnify Defendant in case of any 28 third-party claims. In addition, Plaintiff alleged that this constituted unlawful and unfair 08cv817 1 business practice in violation of California Business and Professions Code Sections 17200 et 2 seq. ("Unfair Competition Law" or "UCL"). 3 A Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss tests the sufficiency of the complaint. Navarro v. 4 Block, 250 F.3d 729, 732 (9th Cir. 2001). Dismissal is warranted under Rule 12(b)(6) where the 5 complaint lacks a cognizable legal theory. Robertson v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 749 F.2d 6 530, 534 (9th Cir. 1984); see Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 326 (1989) ("Rule 12(b)(6) 7 authorizes a court to dismiss a claim on the basis of a dispositive issue of law"). Alternatively, a 8 complaint may be dismissed where it presents a cognizable legal theory yet fails to plead 9 essential facts under that theory. Robertson, 749 F.2d at 534. The "complaint must, at a 10 minimum, plead `enough facts to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.'" Johnson 11 v. Riverside Healthcare Sys., LP, 534 F.3d 1116, 1122 (9th Cir. 2008), quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. 12 Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, ___; 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1974 (2007). 13 In reviewing a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), the court must assume the truth of 14 all factual allegations and must construe them in the light most favorable to the nonmoving 15 party. Cahill v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 80 F.3d 336, 337-38 (9th Cir. 1996). However, legal 16 conclusions need not be taken as true merely because they are cast in the form of factual 17 allegations. Roberts v. Corrothers, 812 F.2d 1173, 1177 (9th Cir. 1987); W. Mining Council v. 18 Watt, 643 F.2d 618, 624 (9th Cir. 1981). Similarly, "conclusory allegations of law and 19 unwarranted inferences are not sufficient to defeat a motion to dismiss." Pareto v. Fed. Deposit 20 Ins. Corp., 139 F.3d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1998.) 21 Defendant argues that the complaint should be dismissed. The alleged labor law 22 violations are possible only if Plaintiff was Defendant's employee rather than an independent 23 contractor.1 See Cal. Labor Code §§ 221 & 400-410; Wage Order 4-2001. The contract between 24 Plaintiff and Defendant specifically provided that Plaintiff was an independent contractor and 25 not an employee (see Compl. Ex. A), and California Business and Professions Code Section 26 10032(b) authorizes such contracts. Nevertheless, Defendant has not cited any authority to 27 1 Th not dispute that Plaintiff must be Defendant's employee to be able 28 to recover under e parties do labor law claims. the alleged 2 08cv817 1 conclusively negate the possibility of an employment relationship. Neither the California Labor 2 Code nor the IWC defines the terms "employee" and "independent contractor" for purposes of 3 the claims asserted in the Complaint. See Estrada v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc., 154 Cal. 4 App. 4th 1, 10 (2007); Wage Order 4-2001 ¶ 2(F). The relevant determination is made based on 5 a fact intensive analysis. See Estrada, 154 Cal. App. 4th at 10 (listing factors). A contract 6 designating a contracting party as an independent contractor and not an employee does not per 7 se negate a finding of an employment relationship. See id.; see also Real v. Driscoll Strawberry 8 Assoc., Inc., 603 F.2d 748, 775 (9th Cir. 1979). 9 Defendant next maintains that the first cause of action pertaining to the professional 10 liability insurance should be dismissed for failure to adequately allege that Defendant required 11 Plaintiff to purchase the insurance. Specifically, Defendant argues that Exhibit B to the 12 complaint contradicts the allegations. Plaintiff alleged that he was "required to purchase, and 13 did in fact purchase out of [his] own personal funds, insurance and/or indemnification related to 14 legal claims brought by third parties against [Defendant] or Plaintiff . . . or both . . .." (Compl. at 15 2; see also id. at 7 ("Defendant . . . required Plaintiff . . . to become then direct or indirect 16 insurer[] of Defendant against losses from third party tort liability by requiring Plaintiff . . . to 17 purchase insurance for Defendant's benefit.").) Although the complaint refers to Exhibit B (id. 18 at 2-3), this information does not appear there. However, contrary to Defendant's argument, 19 Exhibit B is silent on the issue rather than contradictory. Accordingly, Defendant's argument is 20 rejected. 21 Last, Defendant argues that the Complaint should be dismissed because it only 22 conclusively alleges that Plaintiff was an employee and does not attempt to allege any facts in 23 support of various factors relevant to distinguishing employees from independent contractors. In 24 response, Plaintiff maintains he was an employee as a matter of law, because in California, "for 25 purposes of liability to third parties for torts, a real estate salesperson is the agent of the broker 26 who employs him or her" and not an independent contractor. Cal. Real Estate Loans, Inc. v. 27 Wallace, 18 Cal. App. 4th 1575, 1581 (1993). Accordingly, "[t]he broker is liable as a matter of 28 / / / / / 3 08cv817 1 law for all damages caused to third persons by the tortious acts of the salesperson committed 2 within the course and scope of employment." Id. 3 This argument is unpersuasive. Plaintiff cites no legal authority, and the court is aware of 4 none, where this concept is extended, as suggested by Plaintiff, beyond the third party's right to 5 recover tort damages from the broker. Furthermore, Plaintiff's interpretation of this legal 6 authority appears to be at odds with California Business and Professions Code Section 10032(b), 7 which expressly permits a broker and a salesperson licensed under that broker to contract 8 between themselves as independent contractors "for purposes of their legal relationship with and 9 obligations to each other." Section 10032(b) was expressly intended to not interfere with the 10 broker's vicarious liability for a salesperson's tortious acts. See Wallace, 18 Cal. App. 4th at 11 1581 & n.2. 12 To establish he was Defendant's employee Plaintiff must therefore meet the common law 13 definition. See Estrada, 154 Cal. App. 4th 10. The federal pleading standard is not onerous: 14 15 16 17 18 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, in order to give the defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests. While a complaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss does not need detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff's obligation to provide the grounds of his entitlement to relief requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do. Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level, on the assumption that all the allegations in the complaint are true (even if doubtful in fact). 19 Bell Atl., 127 S. Ct. at 1964-65. Plaintiff's conclusory allegation that he was Defendant's 20 employee, without more, does not meet this pleading standard. The court therefore finds that 21 Plaintiff does not sufficiently allege his labor law claims. 22 Defendant also moves to dismiss Plaintiff's UCL claim. The Unfair Competition Law 23 prohibits unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business acts or practices. Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code 24 § 17200. "[I]t establishes three varieties of unfair competition - acts or practices which are 25 unlawful, or unfair, or fraudulent." Cal-Tech. Commc'ns, Inc. v. Los Angeles Cellular Tel. Co., 26 20 Cal.4th 163, 180 (1999). The complaint alleges the UCL claim under the unlawful and unfair 27 prongs. 28 / / / / / 4 08cv817 1 "An unlawful business practice under section 17200 is an act or practice, committed 2 pursuant to a business activity, that is at the same time forbidden by law." Progressive W. Ins. 3 Co. v. Yolo County Super. Ct. (Preciado), 135 Cal. App. 4th 263, 287 (2006) (emphasis in 4 original). Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's practices or acts were "unlawful" because they 5 violated California labor laws. As discussed above, Plaintiff did not sufficiently allege the labor 6 law claims. Accordingly, his UCL allegations fail to the extent they rely on the labor law 7 violations. 8 Plaintiff also alleges that Defendant's acts or practices were unfair. "A business practice 9 is unfair within the meaning of the UCL if it violates established public policy or if it is immoral, 10 unethical, oppressive or unscrupulous and causes injury to consumers which outweighs its 11 benefits." McKell v. Wash. Mut., Inc., 142 Cal. App. 4th 1457, 1473 (2006). 12 Defendant argues that the claim should be dismissed because Plaintiff lacks standing. 13 "[A] private person has no standing under the UCL unless that person can establish that the 14 injury suffered and the loss of property or money resulted from conduct that fits within one of 15 the categories of `unfair competition' in section 17200." Daro v. Super. Ct. (Foy), 151 Cal. 16 App. 4th 1079, 1098 (2007); Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17204. Plaintiff alleges that the unfair 17 practice was Defendant's requirement to purchase professional liability and automobile 18 insurance in part for Defendant's benefit, when Defendant allegedly should not have passed 19 these business expenses on to Plaintiff. As a result, Plaintiff seeks to recover the amount paid 20 for additional automobile insurance for Defendant's benefit, and the money paid to Defendant to 21 obtain the professional liability policy. (Compl. at 10.) The foregoing allegations are sufficient 22 to establish standing under section 17200. 23 Defendant also maintains that its insurance requirements were not unfair for purposes of 24 section 17200, because Plaintiff benefitted at least in part from the policies. "[W]hether a 25 business practice is deceptive, fraudulent, or unfair is generally a question of fact which requires 26 consideration and weighing of evidence from both sides and which usually cannot be made on 27 demurrer." Linear Tech. Corp. v. Applied Materials, Inc., 152 Cal. App. 4th 115, 134-35 (2007). 28 Accordingly, granting a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss under UCL is appropriate only in rare 5 08cv817 1 situations. Williams v. Gerber Prod. Co., 552 F.3d 934, 938-40 (9th Cir. 2008). Defendant does 2 not contradict this. To the contrary, it argues that "to show that a business practice is not 3 `unfair,' the defendant may prove the reasons, justifications, and motives for the business 4 practice." (P.&A. in Supp. of Mtn. to Dismiss at 15, citing Motors, Inc. v. Times Mirror Co., 5 102 Cal. App. 3d 735, 740 (1980).) A Rule 12(b)(6) motion does not provide an opportunity for 6 Defendant to go beyond what is alleged in the complaint 7 Based on the foregoing, Defendant's motion to dismiss is granted as to all claims except 8 for the UCL claim to the extent it is based on the allegation of unfair business practices. 9 Plaintiff requested leave to amend the complaint to the extent the motion is granted. 10 Rule 15 advises the court that leave to amend shall be freely given when justice so 11 requires. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). "This policy is to be applied with extreme liberality." Eminence 12 Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1051 (9th Cir. 2003) (internal quotation marks and 13 citation omitted). 14 15 16 In the absence of any apparent or declared reason -- such as undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, futility of amendment, etc. -- the leave sought should, as the rules require, be "freely given." 17 Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). Of the foregoing factors, the "prejudice to the 18 opposing party . . . carries the greatest weight." Eminence Capital, 316 F.3d at 1052. "Absent 19 prejudice, or a strong showing of any of the remaining Foman factors, there exists a presumption 20 under Rule 15(a) in favor of granting leave to amend." Id. (citation omitted). Defendant has not 21 indicated that it would be prejudiced by leave to amend and has made no showing on the 22 remaining Foman factors; accordingly, Plaintiff's request for a leave to amend is GRANTED. 23 24 Based on the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED as follows: 1. Defendant's motion to dismiss is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. 25 It is granted with respect to the first two causes of action for labor law violations, and denied 26 with respect to the third cause of action. 27 / / / / / 28 / / / / / 6 08cv817 1 2. Plaintiff is granted LEAVE TO AMEND complaint with respect to the deficiencies 2 discussed above. If Plaintiff chooses, he may add a cause of action for violation of California 3 Labor Code Section 2802. 4 3. The amended complaint, if any, shall be filed and served no later than 15 days after 5 this order is stamped filed. Any response shall be filed and served as provided in Rule 15(a)(3). 6 7 8 DATED: March 25, 2009 9 10 11 COPY TO: M. James Lorenz United States District Court Judge IT IS SO ORDERED. HON. ANTHONY J. BATTAGLIA 12 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 13 ALL PARTIES/COUNSEL 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 7 08cv817

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?