Gomez v. Elite Labor Services Weeklys, Ltd.

Background

Fernando Gomez sued Elite Labor Services Weeklys, Ltd., Elite Staffing, Inc., and Southland Employment Services, Inc. He asserted ten claims under the California Labor Code and a related claim under California Business and Professions Code section 17200. The claims concerned alleged wage-and-hour violations, including rest breaks, overtime, vacation pay, pay-card fees, and wages allegedly unpaid when employment ended.

The court had previously dismissed Gomez’s second amended complaint because it treated the three defendants collectively and did not distinguish the allegations against each one. The court said this failed to provide each defendant fair notice of the basis for the claims. Gomez then filed a third amended complaint with the same defendants and claims.

Reasoning

Elite Labor and Elite Staffing moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal when a complaint does not adequately state a legal claim. They argued that Gomez still did not specify the conduct of each defendant supporting liability. The court agreed.

Gomez alleged that he was nominally employed by Elite, assigned to work for PrimeSource, and interacted with Southland, which he said appeared to have acted as a subcontractor or agent of Elite Staffing. But, apart from that allegation, the complaint contained no separate references to Elite Labor or Elite Staffing and instead referred to both entities collectively as “Elite.” The court concluded that the third amended complaint again failed to give either entity fair notice of the basis for the claims.

The court also identified additional deficiencies Gomez could address in another amendment. For the rest-break claim, the relevant allegations concerned PrimeSource’s alleged failure, and the court stated that Elite Defendants could not be held vicariously liable for that violation even assuming they were joint employers with PrimeSource. For the overtime claim, Gomez did not allege facts showing that his alleged off-the-clock work exceeded the statutory daily, weekly, or seventh-day thresholds. For the claim concerning a willful failure to pay wages at termination, he did not provide facts supporting his conclusory allegation that Elite Defendants intentionally adopted incompatible policies or practices.

Disposition

The court granted the Elite defendants’ motion to dismiss the third amended complaint and dismissed the complaint with leave to amend. The court allowed Gomez to file a fourth amended complaint no later than July 15, 2022. Judge Maxine M. Chesney signed the order on June 24, 2022.