Hill v. Pacific Maritime Association

Background

The plaintiffs were 16 current and former watchmen, longshore workers, and clerks who worked or had worked at California ports. They alleged that the defendants—Pacific Maritime Association (PMA) and other entities—were their employers or joint employers and failed to provide sick pay and leave required by California state and municipal laws. The plaintiffs also alleged that defendants retaliated against watchmen who filed complaints with the California Labor Commissioner by excluding them from Pandemic Appreciation Pay.

The second amended complaint asserted ten claims, including a California Private Attorneys General Act claim, claims under sick-pay laws in San Francisco, Oakland, Los Angeles, and San Diego, retaliation claims, wage-statement claims, claims concerning payment of wages at termination and during employment, and an unfair-competition claim. The plaintiffs also included class allegations.

Motion to Dismiss

The defendants moved to dismiss all claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim. They argued that the plaintiffs had not adequately alleged that all defendants employed the plaintiffs, had not identified each defendant’s alleged wrongdoing, and had not pleaded sufficient facts supporting the individual claims.

The court held that the plaintiffs did not plausibly allege that any defendant employed any particular plaintiff. The complaint did not identify which defendant appeared as the employer on which plaintiff’s pay records. Although it alleged that PMA handled labor relations, human resources, payroll, benefits, training, and work orders, it did not adequately allege facts showing that PMA controlled wages, hours, or working conditions or otherwise met California’s legal definition of an employer. The court also rejected the plaintiffs’ reliance on an “integrated enterprise” theory because the complaint did not adequately allege the defendants’ control over wages, daily work, operations, management, or labor relations.

The court further held that the complaint improperly grouped the defendants together and did not identify what each defendant allegedly did. Because the plaintiffs did not adequately allege which defendants employed which plaintiffs or what conduct each defendant undertook, the court granted the motion to dismiss on those grounds.

Claim-Specific Rulings

The court dismissed with leave to amend the PAGA claim based on California Labor Code sections 246 and 246.5. The plaintiffs did not identify which defendants violated which plaintiffs’ sick-leave rights and did not allege enough facts about the hours or days they worked to show eligibility or injury.

The court dismissed with leave to amend all claims based on the municipal sick-pay laws. The plaintiffs did not allege where particular plaintiffs worked, which plaintiffs worked in which cities, which defendants operated in which cities, or where particular violations occurred.

The court dismissed with leave to amend the whistleblower-retaliation claim. The plaintiffs did not identify which defendants employed plaintiffs Hill and Johnson, which defendants received the Labor Commissioner complaints or attorney letters, or facts establishing a connection between the complaints and the exclusion of watchmen from Pandemic Appreciation Pay. The court also found that the Los Angeles municipal retaliation claim was inadequately pleaded for the same reasons as the other municipal-law claims.

The court dismissed with leave to amend the unfair-competition claim because it depended on the inadequately pleaded sick-pay, retaliation, and municipal-law violations. It dismissed with leave to amend the wage-statement claims because the plaintiffs did not plausibly allege injury, identify which defendants issued which wage statements, or show that any defendant knowingly and intentionally omitted required information.

The court also dismissed with leave to amend the claim under California Labor Code sections 201–203 concerning payment of wages at termination because the plaintiffs did not identify which defendants employed or terminated the particular plaintiffs bringing that claim. Finally, it dismissed with leave to amend the claim under section 204 concerning the timing of wage payments during employment. The court explained that the plaintiffs alleged underpayment resulting from unpaid sick pay, but did not adequately allege a violation of the timing requirement in section 204.

Motion to Strike

The defendants moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) to strike paragraph 88 and the class allegations. Paragraph 88 stated that the defendants violated federal public policy concerning sick pay, including public policy described in Executive Order 13706. The court denied the motion to strike paragraph 88 because the defendants had not shown that the paragraph was redundant, irrelevant, improper, or scandalous.

The court denied as moot the motion to strike or dismiss the class allegations at that time. It explained that courts in the district generally do not decide such motions at the pleading stage and that the complaint’s class allegations could be addressed after further amendment and development of the claims.

Disposition

Judge Corley dismissed the complaint with leave to amend for failure to state a claim, stating that all claims against all defendants were dismissed. The court denied defendants’ motion to strike paragraph 88 and denied as moot the motion to strike or dismiss the class allegations at that time. Any third amended complaint was due by February 27, 2025.