Hernandez v. Aramark Food and Support Services Group, Inc.
- Edward Davila
- 5:20-cv-03633
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 6
In Hernandez v. Aramark, Judge Davila granted in part and denied in part Aramark’s motion to strike parts of Hernandez’s wage claims.
Lilliana Hernandez and Aramark Food and Support Services Group, Inc.; the order removed six categories of allegations from Hernandez’s complaint but left the challenged waiting-time-penalty, attorney’s-fee, and interest issues available for a possible later motion.
What happened
Hernandez v. Aramark Food and Support Services Group, Inc. is a wage-and-hour case involving alleged violations of California law by Hernandez’s former employer. Aramark asked the court to remove seven categories of allegations and requested relief from the complaint.
The court granted the motion as to six categories, including references to several California Labor Code provisions, certain remedies under the California Business and Professions Code, and a redundant request for costs. The court denied the motion as to Hernandez’s waiting-time-penalty claim and her requests for attorney’s fees and interest related to meal-and-rest-period claims.
Judge Edward J. Davila ruled that a motion to strike cannot be used to dismiss claims or requested damages as legally unavailable. The denials were without prejudice to Aramark renewing those arguments in a proper motion, and the motion to strike was granted in part and denied in part.
The detailed version
- Hernandez v. Aramark Food and Support Services Group, Inc. · No. 5:20-cv-03633
- Edward Davila
- Sept. 11, 2020
Background
Lilliana Hernandez brought a wage-and-hour lawsuit against her former employer, Aramark Food and Support Services Group, Inc. The complaint alleged violations of the California Labor Code and California Business and Professions Code. Aramark filed a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f), which allows a court to remove from a pleading matter that is an insufficient defense or is redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous.
The Six Unopposed Requests
Hernandez agreed that six categories of material could be removed. The court therefore granted Aramark’s motion as unopposed as to:
- References to California Labor Code section
- 2. References to California Labor Code sections 1174 and 1174.5.
- References to California Labor Code section
- 4. References to California Labor Code section
- 5. Requests for injunctive relief, restitution, and disgorgement connected to Hernandez’s claim under California Business and Professions Code sections 17200 and following.
- A redundant reference to costs of suit in the requested relief.
Waiting-Time Penalties
Aramark also asked the court to strike Hernandez’s California Labor Code section 203 claim for waiting-time penalties to the extent it was based on alleged failures to pay meal-and-rest-period premiums when her employment ended. Aramark argued that those premiums were not “wages” that could support waiting-time penalties.
The court denied this part of the motion, without prejudice to Aramark renewing the argument in an appropriate motion. The court explained that Aramark’s argument concerned whether the claim was legally available, not whether the challenged material was redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous. Under Ninth Circuit precedent, Rule 12(f) does not authorize a court to dismiss a damages claim on the ground that the claim is barred as a matter of law.
Attorney’s Fees and Interest
Aramark made a similar request concerning Hernandez’s claims for meal-and-rest-period premiums under California Labor Code section 226.7. It asked the court to strike her requests for attorney’s fees and interest, arguing that those claims did not qualify as actions for the nonpayment of wages.
The court denied this part of the motion, also without prejudice to renewal in an appropriate motion. Judge Edward J. Davila stated that this argument likewise challenged the legal availability of the requested relief and therefore could not be decided through a Rule 12(f) motion to strike. The court expressly granted in part and denied in part the motion to strike.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.