Perez v. DXC Technology Services LLC

Background

Patricia A. Perez filed a proposed class action against DXC Technology Services LLC, Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company, HP Enterprise Services, LLC, and Enterprise Services, LLC. She alleged that the defendants failed to pay her and proposed class members for all hours worked, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and California wage-and-hour laws. Among other allegations, Perez claimed that she and the proposed class members were misclassified as exempt employees, worked more than eight hours per day and forty hours per week without overtime pay, were not provided meal or rest periods, were required to work through those periods, and were affected by policies that unlawfully forfeited vested vacation pay. She also alleged that the defendants did not provide accurate wage statements.

The defendants moved to dismiss all claims against DXC and HPE and Perez’s ninth claim, which sought civil penalties under California’s Private Attorneys General Act, against all defendants. The court also considered requests for judicial notice. It granted the defendants’ request concerning Perez’s notice to the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency and granted Perez’s request concerning two public name-change documents.

Claims Against DXC and HPE

The defendants argued that Perez was employed by HP Enterprise Services, LLC and Enterprise Services, LLC, not by DXC or HPE. Perez argued that she had adequately pleaded that all defendants employed her jointly. She relied on allegations that the defendants acted as one another’s agents, carried out a joint plan or policy, and that she had been hired by the defendants’ predecessors.

The court held that these allegations were not enough under Rule 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. Because an employment relationship is required for the wage claims at issue, Perez had to plead facts making it plausible that each defendant employed her or was otherwise liable. The court found that the complaint merely grouped the defendants together and did not provide facts showing a joint-employer relationship, such as whether DXC or HPE had the power to hire or fire her. The allegation that she was hired by the defendants’ “predecessors” also did not identify those predecessors or explain their relationship to each defendant. The court therefore granted the motion to dismiss all claims against DXC and HPE, with leave to amend.

PAGA Claim

The defendants also sought dismissal of Perez’s PAGA claim against all defendants. They argued that Perez had not completed the required administrative process as to the two entities that employed her and could not assert a PAGA claim against the other two entities because they were not her employers. Perez responded that she could correct the administrative-exhaustion problem through an amended complaint and a new notice.

The court found the PAGA allegations deficient concerning exhaustion of administrative remedies but concluded that Perez believed she could correct the deficiencies. It granted the motion to dismiss the PAGA claim as to all defendants, with leave to amend. Any amended complaint had to include facts plausibly showing that Perez completed the required administrative process as to each defendant.

Order and Effect

The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss at ECF 49 with leave to amend. Any amended complaint was due May 15, 2020, and Perez was required to attach a redlined version comparing it with the second amended complaint. Amendment was limited to the defects discussed in the order and the motion; Perez could not add parties or claims without the court’s prior express permission. The court stated that the third amended complaint would be Perez’s final opportunity to correct the defects.