Barajas v. Carriage Cemetery Services of California, Inc.
- Edward Chen
- 3:19-cv-02035
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 11
In Barajas v. Carriage Services, Judge Chen granted in part and denied in part the defendant’s motion to dismiss and strike wage-and-hour claims.
The three plaintiffs’ wage claims and class-action allegations were affected, as were Carriage Services, Inc.’s challenges to those claims. Some wage claims proceeded, some portions were not allowed to proceed, nonrestitutionary relief under section 17200 was dismissed in part, and specified allegations were stricken.
What happened
Yoshira Barajas, Henry Grant, and Nachae Williams brought a wage-and-hour class action against Carriage Services, Inc. The defendant asked the court to dismiss certain claims and strike allegations from the third amended complaint.
The court allowed the plaintiffs’ minimum-wage claims to proceed as described in the order. It allowed all of Barajas’s overtime claim, part of Grant’s overtime claim, and all of Williams’s overtime claim. The court limited the unfair-business-practices claim to restitutionary relief, and it struck several allegations while leaving one identified paragraph untouched.
Judge Edward M. Chen granted in part and denied in part both the motion to dismiss and the motion to strike. The order disposed of the defendant’s motion.
The detailed version
- Barajas v. Carriage Cemetery Services of California, Inc. · No. 3:19-cv-02035
- Edward Chen
- Mar. 12, 2020
Background
Yoshira Barajas, Henry Grant, and Nachae Williams filed a wage-and-hour class action against Carriage Services, Inc. The operative pleading was the third amended complaint. The defendant moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal when a complaint does not adequately state a claim, and Rule 12(f), which allows a court to strike immaterial or other improper pleading material.
Minimum-Wage Claims
Barajas’s minimum-wage claim was not challenged in this motion and would proceed in its entirety.
Grant adequately stated minimum-wage claims for both his work as an Outside Sales Representative and his work as an Advanced Planning Counselor. The court found that his allegations that he worked without compensation, and that he worked at least 41 hours in a week while being paid at the local minimum wage, were sufficient at the pleading stage.
Williams adequately stated a minimum-wage claim for her work as a commission-only employee. The order states that she did not assert a minimum-wage claim for her time as a Pre-Planning Counselor.
Overtime Claims
Barajas’s overtime claim was not challenged in this motion and would proceed in its entirety.
Grant adequately stated an overtime claim for his work as an Advanced Planning Counselor because he alleged that he worked more than 40 hours in workweeks from 2015 to 2016 and was not paid for hours exceeding 40. He did not adequately state an overtime claim for his work as an Outside Sales Representative because he did not clearly allege that he worked more than 40 hours in a particular workweek. The court therefore allowed only the Advanced Planning Counselor portion of Grant’s overtime claim.
Williams adequately stated overtime claims for both her work as a Pre-Planning Counselor and as a commission-only employee. The allegations stated that she worked more than 40 hours each week and was not paid overtime.
Other Claims
The parties agreed that the California Labor Code section 203 claim depended on the minimum-wage and overtime claims. The court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss that claim consistently with its rulings on those wage claims.
The court granted in part the motion to dismiss the California Business and Professions Code section 17200 claim. The plaintiffs could seek restitutionary relief, such as unpaid wages, but the court rejected their continued request for nonrestitutionary relief, including money connected to the defendant’s profits or higher stock prices.
Motion to Strike
The court granted in part and denied in part the motion to strike. It struck paragraphs 4, 43(3), 43(4), 45(e), 45(f) through 45(p), and 45(s), which referred to claims or proposed class issues involving claims the court had previously dismissed or that were not currently part of the case. The court did not strike paragraph 45(q), concerning written commission agreements under Labor Code section 2751, because the order had previously indicated that a section 17200 claim could potentially involve that subject.
Disposition
Judge Edward M. Chen granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss and granted in part and denied in part the motion to strike. The order disposed of Docket No. 65.
Read the full 11-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.