Opinion
21-cv-09955-BLF
01-19-2023
NELSON RAMIREZ, Plaintiff, v. HV GLOBAL MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, et al., Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO DISMISS THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND IN PART AND WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND IN PART
[RE: ECF NO. 51]
BETH LABSON FREEMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Plaintiff Nelson Ramirez filed suit against Defendant HV Global Management Corporation alleging violations of California Labor Code and Business & Professions Code. See ECF No. 45 (“SAC”). Now before the Court is Defendant's motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. ECF No. 51 (“MTD”); see also ECF No. 54 (“Reply”). Defendant argues that none of Plaintiff's claims is sufficiently pled under Rule 12(b)(6). Plaintiff opposes the motion. ECF No. 53 (“Opp.”). The Court held a hearing on the motion on January 19, 2023. See ECF No. 58. For the reasons stated on the record at the hearing and explained below, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint WITH LEAVE TO AMEND IN PART and WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND IN PART.
I. ALL CAUSES OF ACTION AND CLASS MEMBER ALLEGATIONS
The Court's Order on the Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint (“MTD FAC Order”) addresses why Plaintiff's claims are being dismissed and what is required of Plaintiff to adequately plead his claims. See ECF No. 42. Plaintiff failed to apply the Court's requirements for an amended complaint and nothing in the SAC passes muster. The Court's prior Order clearly addresses the deficiencies in the SAC. The Court has attached the MTD FAC Order here and refers Plaintiff to that Order in amending his causes of action and class member allegations.
II. CLAIM 6: WAGE STATEMENT VIOLATIONS
Plaintiff's sixth cause of action is for failure to provide accurate wage statements in violation of California Labor Code § 226(a). See SAC ¶¶ 97-104. Labor Code § 226 identifies nine categories of information that must be included in a wage statement, and it provides that an employee who suffers injury by an employer's knowing and intentional failure to provide such information is entitled to damages. Cal. Labor Code § 226. Defendant argues that the Court should dismiss the cause of action because Section 226 does not permit recovery for wage statement claims that are purely derivative of other claims. MTD at 26-27.
A plaintiff cannot state a claim for a wage statement violation that is completely derivative of their wage and hour claims. Krauss v. Wal-Mart, Inc., No. 2:19-cv-00838-JAM-DB, 2019 WL 6170770, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 20, 2019) (citing Maldonado v. Epsilon Plastics, Inc., 22 Cal.App. 5th 1308, 1337 (2018)). A wage statement claim that is completely derivative of other claims would provide “an impermissible double recovery.” Castro v. Wal-Mart, Inc., No. 2:20-cv-00928-JAM-KJN, 2020 WL 4748167, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 17, 2020) (citing Maldonado, 22 Cal.App. 5th at 1336). To the extent that Ramirez's wage statement claim is derivative of his other claims, it is DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.
III. EQUITABLE RELIEF
Plaintiff's eighth cause of action is for violation of California's Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq. SAC ¶¶ 110-116. Defendant argues that the Court should dismiss or strike this cause of action because Ramirez has not pleaded an inadequate remedy at law, as required for a plaintiff to obtain equitable relief. MTD at 28-29.
For a district court to entertain a request for equitable relief, the plaintiff must have no adequate legal remedy. Sonner v. Premier Nutrition Corp., 971 F.3d 834, 844 (9th Cir. 2020). A plaintiff cannot state a claim for equitable relief “if the pleading does not demonstrate the inadequacy of a legal remedy.” Sharma v. Volkswagen AG, 524 F.Supp.3d 891, 907 (N.D. Cal. 2021). A plaintiff may plead a claim for equitable relief in the alternative. See, e.g., Freeman v. Indochino Apparel, Inc., 443 F.Supp.3d 1107, 1114 (N.D. Cal. 2020) (“Plaintiff may allege claims in the alternative at the pleading stage.”); Sagastume v. Psychemedics Corp., No. CV 20-6624 DSF (GJSx), 2020 WL 8175597, at *7 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 30, 2020) (“Sonner does not hold that plaintiffs may not seek alternative remedies at the pleading stage.”) (citation omitted). The eighth cause of action is DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.
IV. ORDER
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
• Defendant's motion to dismiss the first and fourth claims for failure to pay minimum wage and overtime wages is GRANTED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND;
• Defendant's motion to dismiss the second and third claims for meal and rest break violations is GRANTED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND;
• Defendant's motion to dismiss the fifth claim for failure to pay wages for terminated or resigned employees is GRANTED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND;
• Defendant's motion to dismiss the sixth claim for wage statement violations is GRANTED, and this grant is WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND to the extent that the violations are derivative of other claims;
• Defendant's motion to dismiss the seventh claim for failure to pay reimbursements is GRANTED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND;
• Defendant's motion to dismiss the eighth claim for failure to state a claim and failure to plead the inadequacy of legal remedies is GRANTED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND; and
• Defendant's motion to dismiss the class allegations is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Ramirez SHALL file an amended complaint no later than 14 days following this Order. Failure to meet the deadline to file an amended complaint or failure to cure the deficiencies identified in this Order will result in a dismissal of Ramirez's claims with prejudice. Leave to amend is limited to the defects addressed in this Order. Ramirez may not add new claims or parties absent express leave of Court.