In re Field Asset Services, Inc.

Background

The order addressed motions to dismiss in related individual cases arising from earlier worker-misclassification and wage-and-hour litigation. The Ninth Circuit had decertified the class and reversed a summary-judgment decision in the earlier litigation. Afterward, former class members filed individual cases, which were related to the original case.

Field Asset Services, Inc., Field Asset Services, LLC, Xome Field Services LLC, Cyprexx Services, LLC, and ten unidentified defendants filed motions to dismiss. The court grouped the cases and selected exemplar cases. This order addressed the Group 2 cases led by Garcia v. Field Asset Services, Inc., and the Group 3 cases led by Rodriguez v. Field Asset Services, Inc. The order states that its ruling applied to the other cases in those groups as identified in the order.

Legal standard

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a complaint must be dismissed if it does not state a legally sufficient claim. To proceed, a complaint must allege enough facts to make the requested relief plausible, and the court generally accepts well-pleaded allegations as true while drawing reasonable inferences for the plaintiff.

Group 2: Garcia cases

Field Asset Services argued that Matthew Garcia did not adequately plead overtime, expense reimbursement, waiting-time penalties, or claims under California’s unfair competition law.

The court denied dismissal of Garcia’s overtime claim. Garcia alleged that he typically worked 10 to 12 hours per day, five days per week; spent additional time completing required paperwork; had to meet three-day work deadlines; was paid by completed job rather than by the hour; and was not paid overtime. The court held that he did not need to identify a particular workweek if his allegations otherwise made the claim plausible. The court also rejected arguments concerning travel time and whether all alleged hours were worked for Field Asset Services.

The court denied dismissal of Garcia’s expense-reimbursement claim. He alleged that his work required him to use a cell phone and pay for mileage, dump fees, insurance, tools, equipment, and related costs. The court held that these allegations plausibly showed expenses incurred directly because of his work and that Field Asset Services was aware of them.

The court also denied dismissal of Garcia’s waiting-time penalty claim. Because the court found that his underlying overtime and expense claims were adequately pleaded, it held that the related waiting-time claim could proceed.

Group 3: Rodriguez cases

Gilberto Rodriguez agreed to dismiss all California Labor Code claims that accrued before January 10, 2010. The court dismissed those claims.

The court denied dismissal of Rodriguez’s remaining overtime claim. Rodriguez alleged that he worked 15 to 17 hours per day, five days per week, and described the work and deadlines that allegedly caused him to work those hours without overtime pay. The court held that these allegations were sufficient to satisfy the applicable pleading standard.

The court also denied dismissal of Rodriguez’s expense-reimbursement claim. His allegations concerned unpaid cell-phone, mileage, dump-fee, insurance, tool, and equipment expenses. The court held that the allegations plausibly connected those expenses to his work for Field Asset Services. Because the underlying claims survived, the court also allowed his related waiting-time penalty claim to proceed.

Unfair-competition-law claims

The plaintiffs agreed that their claims under California’s unfair competition law should be dismissed, but requested dismissal without prejudice so they could refile in state court. The defendants sought dismissal with prejudice and argued that refiling would create inefficient parallel litigation.

The court dismissed the unfair-competition-law claims without prejudice. It reasoned that the plaintiffs did not allege that they lacked an adequate remedy through legal damages. Under the cited authorities, that meant the federal court lacked the equitable jurisdiction needed to hear the equitable claims. Because the court lacked that jurisdiction, it did not reach the merits of those claims. The court also rejected the argument that possible parallel state and federal litigation required dismissal with prejudice.

Disposition

Judge Orrick concluded that the motions were granted in part and denied in part. The court denied dismissal of the surviving overtime, expense-reimbursement, and waiting-time claims; dismissed Rodriguez’s Labor Code claims accruing before January 10, 2010; and dismissed the unfair-competition-law claims without prejudice. The order also directed the parties to determine whether later-filed motions were mooted by the ruling or raised new issues requiring additional briefing.