Navarrette v. 5 - Keys Charter School

Background

Tomas Navarrette, also identified as Mr. T. Navarrette El, proceeded without a lawyer. He sued Five Keys Schools and Programs, which the complaint incorrectly named as “5-Keys Charter School”; Butte County; supervisors Oscar Garcia and Dave Bates; and the California Department of Transportation, which had already been dismissed in an earlier order.

Navarrette worked for Five Keys from July 2, 2019, through December 18, 2019, as a Cal-Crew supervisor. He alleged that he worked substantial overtime but was told to clock out at 3:15 p.m. because there was no overtime budget. Five Keys later paid him $720 for 20 overtime hours. He sought payment for approximately 418 additional hours, along with other relief.

The operative first amended complaint asserted four causes of action: a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based on equal protection; claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act and California Labor Code section 510 for unpaid overtime; and a claim under 18 U.S.C. § 1116 based on his alleged status as an internationally protected person. Five Keys and Butte County moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. Butte County also sought transfer as an alternative remedy.

Section 1983 claim

The court held that the complaint did not state an equal-protection claim. To make such a claim, Navarrette needed to allege that the defendants intentionally treated him differently from similarly situated people because he belonged to a protected class. The court found no such allegations. Although the complaint mentioned Navarrette’s religion and membership in the Moorish Science Temple of America, it did not allege that the defendants denied him overtime or scheduling flexibility for those reasons.

The court also held that the Fair Labor Standards Act’s detailed enforcement system displaced Navarrette’s § 1983 theory because the theory was based entirely on unpaid overtime. The court stated that these defects could not be corrected by amendment and dismissed the first claim with prejudice. The body of the opinion analyzes this claim as an equal-protection claim, while the conclusion describes it as a § 1983 claim for violation of due-process rights.

Overtime claims

The court dismissed Navarrette’s federal and state overtime claims because the complaint did not identify a sufficiently specific workweek in which he worked more than 40 hours and was not paid overtime. The court found that alleging three hours of overtime every weekday, every week, throughout six months was too general and implausible in light of the allegation that supervisors repeatedly told him to work more efficiently and stay within 40 hours.

The court did not find the overtime allegations legally impossible or inconsistent. It concluded that the allegations plausibly suggested Five Keys had actual or constructive knowledge of the overtime because Navarrette repeatedly reported the work and supervisors could observe timestamps in work documents. The court therefore dismissed the overtime claims without prejudice and granted leave to amend them.

Butte County

The court held that Butte County was not Navarrette’s employer under the federal or California wage laws. The complaint described the county as a contracting entity but did not allege that it controlled Navarrette’s work schedule, employment terms, or compensation. The court also noted that Navarrette did not assert a joint-employment theory. It dismissed Butte County with prejudice.

Because Butte County was dismissed, the court did not address the county’s alternative requests to transfer the case for improper venue or convenience.

Section 1116 claim

The court held that 18 U.S.C. § 1116 concerns killing or attempting to kill a foreign official, official guest, or internationally protected person. Navarrette alleged no killing or attempted killing. The court also rejected the theory that membership in the Moorish Science Temple of America made him an internationally protected person. It dismissed this claim with prejudice.

Unserved individual defendants and disposition

The court dismissed Oscar Garcia and Dave Bates because no summonses were issued for them and they were not served within the time required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). Their dismissal was without prejudice.

In its conclusion, the court granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss. It dismissed with prejudice the § 1983 claim, the § 1116 claim, and all claims against Butte County. It dismissed without prejudice the two overtime claims and allowed Navarrette 28 days to file a second amended complaint addressing those claims only. The order barred him from adding new claims or parties and dismissed Garcia and Bates without prejudice. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton signed the order on June 10, 2021.