Einstein v. Radio Thermostat Company of America Inc
- Charles Breyer
- 3:21-cv-00300
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Einstein v. Radio Thermostat, Judge Breyer dismissed Claims 4 and 5 with prejudice because one lacked a private right of action and the other was time-barred.
Mike Einstein’s Claims 4 and 5 against Radio Thermostat Company of America, Inc., Tim Simon, Inc., and Tim Simon were dismissed with prejudice.
What happened
In Einstein v. Radio Thermostat Company of America, Inc., Mike Einstein sued Radio Thermostat Company of America, Inc., Tim Simon, Inc., and Tim Simon over eight claims related to his former employment. Claims 4 and 5 concerned worker classification and allegedly inaccurate paystubs.
Tim Simon asked the court to dismiss those claims, and Einstein did not oppose the request. The court ruled that Claim 4 could not proceed because California Labor Code section 226.8 does not create a private right to sue. It ruled that Claim 5 was filed too late because Einstein’s employment ended in 2019 and a one-year deadline applied to the requested civil penalties.
The court concluded that changing either claim would not fix the problems and dismissed Claims 4 and 5 with prejudice. Judge Charles R. Breyer entered the order on October 27, 2021.
The detailed version
- Einstein v. Radio Thermostat Company of America Inc · No. 3:21-cv-00300
- Charles Breyer
- Oct. 27, 2021
Background
Mike Einstein sued his former employer, Radio Thermostat Company of America, Inc., along with Tim Simon, Inc., and Tim Simon. The complaint asserted eight claims.
Claim 4 alleged that the defendants knowingly misclassified workers as independent contractors in violation of California Labor Code section 226.8. Claim 5 sought civil penalties based on an alleged failure to provide accurate paystubs, under Labor Code section 226(a).
Motion and Analysis
Simon moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally recognized claim. Einstein did not oppose the motion.
The court held that both claims lacked a valid legal theory. Claim 4 failed because California Labor Code section 226.8 does not create a private right of action, meaning the statute does not authorize an individual to sue directly under that provision.
Claim 5 failed because Einstein’s employment ended in 2019, and the one-year statute of limitations barred recovery of the requested civil penalties. The court also concluded that amending either claim would be futile because an amendment would not cure the defects.
Disposition
Judge Charles R. Breyer ordered that Claims 4 and 5 be dismissed with prejudice. The order did not state that the entire case was dismissed.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.