Mendis v. Schneider National Carriers, Inc.

Filing 122

ORDER granting #115 Defendant's partial motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs' payroll card and safety equipment deduction claims are dismissed with prejudice; by U.S. District Judge John C Coughenour.(RM)

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

7
8
9

BALAPUWADUGE MENDIS, et al.,

10

Plaintiffs,

CASE NO. C15-0144-JCC
ORDER

v.

11

SCHNEIDER NATIONAL
CARRIERS, INC.,

12
13

Defendant.

14
15

This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Schneider’s partial motion to dismiss

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

(Dkt. No. 115). Having thoroughly considered the parties’ briefing and the relevant record, the
Court finds oral argument unnecessary and hereby GRANTS the motion for the reasons
explained herein.

I.

BACKGROUND
This is a class action brought on behalf of truck drivers employed by Schneider. The facts

of this case have been discussed in previous motions and orders of the Court and will not be
repeated here. Of importance for this motion, however, are the parties’ previous pleadings and
motions, and this Court’s summary judgment order.
In every iteration of Plaintiffs’ complaint, they have made an unlawful deduction claim
which stated:

ORDER
PAGE - 1

Defendant made deductions from Plaintiff(s) and the Class wages, including but
not limited to, for per diem expenses. This was disadvantageous to Plaintiff(s) and
the Class. The employer benefited from the deduction. Further, Plaintiff(s) and the
Class’ wages were reduced below the agreed upon rate.

1
2
3
4

(Dkt. No. 1-1 at 10, ¶ 43; Dkt. No. 39 at 9, ¶ 43; Dkt. No. 93 at 9, ¶ 43; Dkt. No. 114 at 9, ¶ 41.)

5

As factual support for this claim, Plaintiffs alleged that
Defendant has made unlawful deductions from the wages of Plaintiff(s) and the
Class and failed clearly [sic] indicate deductions being made on each employee’s
wage statements. Such deductions were not expressly authorized in writing and in
advance for a lawful purpose for the benefit of the employee. Moreover,
Defendant, or a person acting in the interest of Defendant, derived a financial
benefit from the deductions.

6
7
8
9
10

(Dkt. No. 1-1 at 7, ¶ 21; Dkt. No. 39 at 6, ¶ 22; Dkt. No. 93 at 6, ¶ 23; Dkt. No. 114 at 6,
¶ 22.)

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

Defendant moved for summary judgment on all of Plaintiffs’ claims, including the
per diem deduction claim. (Dkt. No. 43 at 4, 19.) In its introduction, Defendant stated that
all of Plaintiffs’ claims failed for several reasons. (Id. at 4.) Among those was that
“Plaintiffs consented to deduction from their pay for cash withdrawals from their fuel
cards.” 1 (Id.) However, Defendant did not go on to address this argument in its brief. (See
generally id.) In the Court’s order granting in part and denying in part summary
judgment, it noted that “[t]he Court finds the inclusion of a fuel card claim curious, as it
was neither found in Plaintiffs’ complaint nor discussed in Schneider’s motion.
Accordingly, the Court does not address it.” (Dkt. No. 92 at 4 n.1.) As part of the order,
the Court granted Plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint to add two named plaintiffs,
but not to add any additional claims. (Id. at 3.) Plaintiffs did not file a motion for
clarification or reconsideration following that order.

23
24

Plaintiffs later filed a motion for class certification, in which they alleged that
Defendant unlawfully deducts fees from the wages of employees who receive pay on a

25
26

1

“Payroll card” and “fuel card” are used interchangeably by the parties.

ORDER
PAGE - 2

1

payroll card and who purchase safety equipment required for employment. (Dkt. No. 51

2

at 17–18.) And it was not until Plaintiffs’ reply in support of its motion for class

3

certification that it specifically labeled them as a “payroll card deduction claim” and

4

“safety deduction equipment claim.” (Dkt. No. 111 at 14.) Given the uncertain status of

5

the payroll card and safety equipment claims, Defendant filed the present motion to

6

dismiss, arguing that Plaintiffs never asserted either claim in any previous complaint and

7

if they did, they failed to state a claim. (Dkt. No. 115 at 2.) Plaintiffs argue that

8

(1) Defendant’s motion is untimely, (2) their complaint sufficiently states a claim for

9

payroll card and safety equipment deductions, and (3) if the Court dismisses the claims, it

10

should grant leave to amend. (Dkt. No. 118 at 6–9.)

11

II.

DISCUSSION

12
A.

Rule 12(b)(6) standard

13
A defendant may move for dismissal when a plaintiff “fails to state a claim upon which
14
relief can be granted.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). To grant a motion to dismiss, the Court must be
15
able to conclude that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, even after
16
accepting all factual allegations in the complaint as true and construing them in the light most
17
favorable to the non-moving party. Fleming v. Pickard, 581 F.3d 922, 925 (9th Cir. 2009).
18
However, to survive a motion to dismiss, a plaintiff must cite facts supporting a “plausible”
19
cause of action. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555–56 (2007). A claim has
20
“facial plausibility” when the party seeking relief “pleads factual content that allows the Court to
21
draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v.
22
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 672 (2009) (internal quotations omitted). Although the Court must accept as
23
true a complaint’s well-pleaded facts, “conclusory allegations of law and unwarranted inferences
24
will not defeat an otherwise proper motion to dismiss.” Vasquez v. L.A. County, 487 F.3d 1246,
25
1249 (9th Cir. 2007).
26

ORDER
PAGE - 3

1

There are, however, limitations to filing certain pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil

2

Procedure 12. Of importance here is that, “[e]xcept as provided in Rule 12(h)(2) or (3), a party

3

that makes a motion under this rule must not make another motion under this rule raising a

4

defense or objection that was available to the party but omitted from its earlier motion.” Fed. R.

5

Civ. P. 12(g)(2).

6

B.

7

Plaintiffs oppose Defendant’s motion on the basis that it is untimely, as “[t]he filing of an

Timeliness

8

amended complaint will not revive the right to present by motion defenses that were available

9

but were not asserted in a timely fashion prior to the amendment of the pleading[.]” (Dkt. No.

10

118 at 6–7) (quoting 5C Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ. § 1388 (3d ed. Revised 2015)); see also Fed. R.

11

Civ. P. 12(g)(2). The key here is availability. Nowhere in any of Plaintiffs’ complaints can the

12

Court find a reference to payroll card or safety equipment deductions. In fact, it was for this

13

reason that the Court found the reference to a fuel card claim curious in Defendant’s motion for

14

summary judgment. (Dkt. No. 92 at 4.) Plaintiffs alleged deduction from their wages, “including,

15

but not limited to, for per diem expenses.” (Dkt. No. 114 at 9, ¶ 43.) Adding the phrase

16

“including but not limited to” to Plaintiffs’ per diem claim does not give notice to Defendant that

17

Plaintiffs were alleging payroll card and safety equipment claims, especially in the absence of

18

any supporting factual allegations. (See id.) The Court does not find that the payroll card and

19

safety equipment deduction claims were sufficiently pleaded such that failure to state a claim

20

was an available defense at an earlier time. A party cannot move to dismiss a claim of which it

21

has no notice. Defendant’s motion is therefore timely.

22

C.

Sufficiency of the pleading

23

Plaintiffs next argue that even if the motion is timely, they have sufficiently stated claims

24

for the payroll card and safety equipment deductions and “clearly met notice pleading

25

requirements.” (Dkt. No. 118 at 8–9.) However, “Iqbal and Twombly moved us away from a

26

system of pure notice pleading. In addition to providing fair notice, the complaint’s allegations

ORDER
PAGE - 4

1

must now suggest that the claim has at least a plausible chance of success.” Petzschke v. Century

2

Aluminum Co., 729 F.3d 1104, 1107 (9th Cir. 2013) (internal citations omitted). Given that there

3

are no references to, or factual allegations of, the payroll/fuel card or safety equipment

4

deductions, Plaintiffs have not adequately pleaded those claims. The fact that the fuel card and

5

safety equipment deductions may have been discussed by the parties in discovery, (Dkt. No. 118

6

at 9; Dkt. No. 119-9 at 2), does not cure Plaintiffs’ deficient pleading.

7

D.

8

Finally, Plaintiffs request leave to amend the complaint. Plaintiffs wish to amend their

9

unlawful deduction claim to add “payroll cards, and safety equipment.” (Dkt. No. 118-1 at 9.)

10

First, this Court has already denied Plaintiffs leave to add additional claims. (Dkt. No. 92 at 3.)

11

Second, even if this Court were to grant Plaintiffs leave to add the proposed language, it would

12

be little more than conclusory statements with no factual support, falling short of the pleading

13

standards set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a). Plaintiffs are not granted leave to

14

amend.

15

III.

16

Leave to amend

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s partial motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 115) is

17

GRANTED. Plaintiffs’ payroll card and safety equipment deduction claims are DISMISSED

18

WITH PREJUDICE.

19
20

DATED this 7th day of March, 2017.

21
22

A

23
24
25

John C. Coughenour
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

26

ORDER
PAGE - 5