Hill v. Pacific Maritime Association

Background

Plaintiffs alleged that Defendants failed to provide sick pay and leave and that they retaliated against some plaintiffs in violation of California state and municipal laws. Defendants moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) to dismiss for failure to state a claim and under Rule 12(f) to strike allegations concerning the proposed Watchmen class.

Rulings on the Claims

The court dismissed the Private Attorneys General Act claim based on California Labor Code §§ 246 and 246.5. The court found that the Third Amended Complaint did not plausibly allege that any named plaintiff requested sick pay, as required by those provisions.

The court dismissed all municipal sick-leave claims. The Los Angeles claim failed because no named plaintiff alleged making the required request for sick leave. The claims under the Oakland, San Diego, and San Francisco ordinances failed because the named plaintiffs used identical, boilerplate allegations and did not provide facts plausibly showing that each plaintiff missed work for a qualifying reason and should have been paid.

The court allowed the whistleblower-retaliation claim to proceed against Pacific Maritime Association, or PMA. Plaintiffs Hill, Stewart, and R. Johnson alleged that PMA received complaints to the Labor Commissioner about the lack of sick leave and then excluded Watchmen from Pandemic Appreciation Pay. The court found those allegations sufficient at the pleading stage to support protected activity, an adverse employment action, and a causal connection. The court granted dismissal of the retaliation claim as to all other defendants because the complaint did not plausibly allege that they were responsible for withholding the Pandemic Appreciation Pay.

The court dismissed the California Labor Code § 226 wage-statement claim because the plaintiffs did not plausibly allege an injury separate from the alleged sick-pay violations. It also dismissed the claims under Labor Code §§ 201–203 concerning payment of wages after termination because the plaintiffs had not plausibly alleged that they were entitled to the sick-pay wages at issue.

The court dismissed the Labor Code § 204 claim concerning the timing of wage payments. The court stated that an alleged underpayment, without a separate injury or allegation that wages were paid late, was not enough to support that claim. The dismissal allowed amendment only if the plaintiffs could allege an injury separate from the underpayment of wages.

The court dismissed the plaintiffs’ unfair-competition-law claim. The claim relied on the other alleged violations and on the alleged failure to pay Pandemic Appreciation Pay. The court held that the unfair-competition law did not provide the requested payment as restitution and that the plaintiffs had not plausibly alleged standing to seek an injunction on that claim.

Leave to Amend

All dismissed claims were dismissed with leave to amend. The court rejected Defendants’ argument that further amendment should be denied, finding that Defendants had not shown amendment would be futile. Plaintiffs had to file any amended complaint by June 2, 2025, and could not add new claims or defendants without separate permission.

Motion to Strike

The court denied Defendants’ motion to strike the Watchmen class allegations. It found that the plaintiffs had adequately pleaded a retaliation claim against PMA and that the parties presented disputed legal and factual questions about whether the claim could apply to Watchmen who did not personally file Labor Commissioner complaints. The court concluded those issues were not appropriate for resolution at the pleading stage.

Disposition

The court granted in part Defendants’ motion to dismiss and denied the motion to strike. Specifically, the PAGA, municipal-law, wage-statement, termination-payment, wage-timing, and unfair-competition claims were dismissed as stated in the order, all with leave to amend. The retaliation motion was granted as to all defendants except PMA, and the Watchmen class allegations remained in the case.