Hernandez v. Clover Flat Land Fill Inc

Background

Fifteen current or former employees of the 12 defendants asserted 27 discrimination, labor, tort, and other employment-related claims. The federal claims were the first claim, under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and the second claim, under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). The plaintiffs sought supplemental jurisdiction over 25 state-law claims, meaning they asked the federal court to hear those related state claims along with the federal claims.

The court had previously dismissed the original complaint because, among other defects, it asserted claims for people who were not named plaintiffs, asserted a claim against someone who was not named as a defendant, and grouped the allegations instead of providing facts connecting particular plaintiffs, defendants, and claims. The court had allowed the plaintiffs 60 days to amend.

Federal Claims

The court concluded that the First Amended Complaint did little to correct the earlier problems. It continued to plead claims collectively against all defendants and alleged conduct by “Plaintiffs” as a group. The court stated that, at a minimum, none of the plaintiffs plausibly stated a federal claim against any defendant.

For the § 1981 claim, each of the 15 plaintiffs sued all 11 corporate defendants. The court explained that a § 1981 discrimination claim requires allegations identifying an impaired contractual relationship and facts plausibly showing that intentional racial discrimination impaired that relationship. The plaintiffs did not identify what contract, if any, each plaintiff had with each corporate defendant or how any contract was impaired. They also did not plausibly allege what adverse actions were taken because of race, instead relying on general statements that non-Latino workers received preferential treatment and that defendants made racist or derogatory remarks. The court further found no plausible facts showing that race was the required “but-for” cause of impairment of a contractual relationship.

Four plaintiffs—Juan Manuel Carrillo Sr., Lusiano Morales, Pomilio Jacinto Altamirano Reyes, and Juan Carrillo De La Luz—asserted FMLA discrimination and retaliation claims against each of the 11 corporate defendants. The court stated that an FMLA claim requires allegations addressing eligibility, employer coverage, entitlement to leave, notice of the intent to take leave, and denial of entitled benefits. It found that the First Amended Complaint contained no allegations supporting these four plaintiffs’ FMLA claims.

Leave to Amend and State Claims

The court denied further amendment of the federal claims because the plaintiffs had already received an opportunity to amend and had been warned to provide factual allegations meeting the pleading standards. The court found that the plaintiffs had not added facts supporting the federal claims and concluded that further amendment would be futile.

After dismissing the two federal claims, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the 25 state-law claims because the case had not proceeded to discovery and no federal claims remained. It dismissed the state-law claims without prejudice to any plaintiff pursuing them in state court.

Disposition

The corporate defendants’ motion to dismiss was granted without leave to amend as to the first and second federal claims. The remaining state-law claims against all defendants were dismissed without prejudice. Christina Pestoni’s separate motion to dismiss was denied as moot. Judge Jacquelyn Corley stated that the order disposed of Docket Nos. 40 and 41.