Quiroz v. ADS-Myers, Inc.
- James Donato
- 3:20-cv-01755
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Quiroz v. ADS-Myers, Judge Donato denied without prejudice ADS’s motion to dismiss Barrios’s claims over his alleged employment.
Brayan Barrios’s claims were not dismissed. ADS-Myers, Inc. and Karoline Myers may later seek summary judgment based on a more developed factual record. The order stated that the separate arbitration issue would affect only Jenny Quiroz and her claims.
What happened
Quiroz v. ADS-Myers, Inc. is a proposed class action alleging that ADS-Myers, Inc. and Karoline Myers violated federal and California wage-and-hour laws. ADS separately sought to compel Jenny Quiroz to arbitrate her claims under an employment contract, but that issue was not decided in this order.
ADS argued that Brayan Barrios could not sue because he was never an ADS employee. ADS provided evidence that it had no employment records for Barrios, while Barrios said he could prove that ADS employed him as a janitor and non-exempt employee.
Judge James Donato denied ADS’s motion to dismiss Barrios’s claims without prejudice. The judge found that the parties’ disagreement about Barrios’s employment was a factual dispute that should not be resolved at this stage, and said ADS could later seek summary judgment based on a more developed record.
The detailed version
- Quiroz v. ADS-Myers, Inc. · No. 3:20-cv-01755
- James Donato
- Sept. 24, 2021
Background
The case is a proposed class action against ADS-Myers, Inc. and Karoline Myers concerning alleged violations of federal and California wage-and-hour laws. Two motions were pending. ADS asked the court to compel Jenny Quiroz to arbitrate her claims under an arbitration agreement in an employment contract. The court stated that the arbitration motion raised contract-formation questions requiring a bench trial and that findings of fact and conclusions of law for that trial would be filed separately.
This order addressed only ADS’s motion to dismiss the claims of named plaintiff Brayan Barrios under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). Rule 12(b)(1) permits a defendant to challenge the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction, including a plaintiff’s standing to sue. The court stated that Barrios was not alleged to have signed a contract containing an arbitration agreement, so the arbitration ruling would affect only Quiroz and her claims.
The Parties’ Positions
ADS argued that Barrios lacked standing because he was never an ADS employee. The second amended complaint alleged that ADS employed Barrios as a janitor, that he was a non-exempt employee, and that he worked for ADS. ADS submitted evidence indicating that it had no records of employing Barrios. Barrios responded that he would be able to demonstrate an employment relationship with ADS.
Ruling
The court denied the motion to dismiss without prejudice. It characterized the employment disagreement as a factual dispute and declined to resolve it under Rule 12(b). The court explained that this was especially appropriate because the jurisdictional question and the substantive issues were intertwined: deciding jurisdiction depended on factual issues that also concerned the merits of Barrios’s claims.
The court said that a motion for summary judgment based on a developed factual record was the better procedure. ADS may file a summary-judgment motion as the case develops. Judge James Donato entered the order on September 24, 2021.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.