Jones et al v. San Diego Metropolitan Transit System et al

Filing 11

ORDER granting in part and denying in part defendants' 4 Motion to Dismiss. This action is dismissed with leave to amend. Any amended complaint alleging compliance with the CGCA must be filed within two weeks of the date of this Order. Signed by Judge Larry Alan Burns on 8/12/15. (kas)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9
10

MAURICE JONES and LEONEL R.
LEON, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated,

11

CASE NO. 14cv1778-LAB (KSC)
ORDER GRANTING IN PART
AND DENYING IN PART
DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO
DISMISS

Plaintiffs,
vs.

12
13
14

SAN DIEGO METROPOLITAN TRANSIT
SYSTEM; SAN DIEGO TROLLEY, INC.;
and DOES 1–50,
Defendants.

15
16

Maurice Jones and Leonel R. León filed this putative class action against San Diego

17

Metropolitan Transit System and San Diego Trolley, Inc.—both public entities—alleging

18

violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and California labor laws. Defendants now

19

move to dismiss these claims.

20

I.

Discussion

21

A.

22

A 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim challenges the legal sufficiency

23

of a complaint. Navarro v. Block, 250 F.3d 729, 732 (9th Cir. 2001). The Court must accept

24

all factual allegations as true and construe them in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs.

25

Cedars Sinai Med. Ctr. v. Nat'l League of Postmasters of U.S., 497 F.3d 972, 975

26

(9th Cir. 2007). To defeat Defendants' motion to dismiss, Plaintiffs' factual allegations need

27

not be detailed, but they must be sufficient to "raise a right to relief above the speculative

28

level . . . ." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007).

Legal Standards

-1-

14cv1778

1

B.

2

Defendants argue that Plaintiffs' claims must be dismissed since: (1) Plaintiffs fail to

3

allege compliance with the California Government Claims Act (CGCA); (2) the lawsuit is

4

barred by res judicata and collateral estoppel; and (3) the collective bargaining agreement

5

requires arbitration.

6

Analysis

1.

CGCA Compliance

7

Under the CGCA, before suing a public entity for money or damages, a plaintiff must

8

first file a claim with the public entity. See State of CA v. Super. Ct. (Bodde), 32 Cal. 4th

9

1234, 1240–44 (2004). A plaintiff's complaint "must allege facts demonstrating or excusing

10

compliance with the claim presentation requirement." Id. at 1243.

11

While Plaintiffs don't dispute that Defendants are public entities, their complaint

12

doesn't allege CGCA compliance. Instead, they allege compliance for the first time in their

13

opposition to Defendants' motion to dismiss. But on a 12(b)(6) motion, the scope of review

14

is generally limited to the contents of the complaint. See Broam v. Bogan, 320 F.3d 1023,

15

1026 n.2 (9th Cir. 2003) ("In determining the propriety of a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal, a court

16

may not look beyond the complaint to a plaintiff's moving papers, such as a memorandum

17

in opposition to a defendant's motion to dismiss.") (internal quotation marks omitted).

18

Because the complaint doesn't allege CGCA compliance, Plaintiffs failed to allege a legally

19

sufficient claim. But since Plaintiffs may be able to allege compliance, the Court dismisses

20

the complaint with leave to amend. See, e.g., Randolph v. City of E. Palo Alto, 2007 WL

21

1232057, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 26, 2007).

22

2.

Res Judicata and Collateral Estoppel

23

Defendants seek dismissal on res judicata and collateral estoppel grounds based on

24

an earlier state court action. But these defenses may not be raised in a motion to dismiss

25

unless they raise no disputed issues of fact. See, e.g., Scott v. Kuhlmann, 746 F.2d 1377,

26

1378 (9th Cir. 1984). It's not clear whether Plaintiffs were parties to that action, and Plaintiffs

27

contend they weren't. Since privity is a necessary element for both res judicata and collateral

28

estoppel to apply, see Allen v. McCurry, 449 U.S. 90, 94 (1980), and the factual record
-2-

14cv1778

1

before the Court on this motion is disputed, the Court denies Defendants' motion to dismiss

2

on res judicata and collateral estoppel grounds.

3

3.

Arbitration

4

Defendants argue that Plaintiffs have failed to exhaust grievance procedures, which

5

require arbitration of any claims arising under their collective bargaining agreements (CBAs).

6

But a CBA waives the right of a union member to pursue employment-related statutory

7

claims in court only when the waiver is "clear and unmistakable." Wright v. Universal

8

Martime Serv. Corp., 525 U.S. 70, 75, 80 (1998) (holding that arbitration clause which

9

provided for arbitration of "[m]atters under dispute," was not sufficiently clear to waive a union

10

member's right to file a claim under the ADA in a federal district court). Here, the CBAs are

11

"very general" and contain "no explicit incorporation" of statutory claims. Id. at 80. Plaintiffs

12

therefore need not arbitrate their statutory claims.

13

II.

Conclusion

14

The motion to dismiss is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. This action is

15

DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. Any amended complaint alleging compliance with

16

the CGCA must be filed within TWO WEEKS OF THE DATE OF THIS ORDER.

17
18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: August 12, 2015

20
21

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS
United States District Judge

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-

14cv1778