Ulloa II v. Securitas Security Services USA, Inc.

Background

Michael Angel Ulloa II filed a putative class action against Securitas Security Services USA, Inc., alleging wage-and-hour violations under California law. The complaint asserted claims concerning required meal periods, required rest periods, overtime wages, minimum wages, wages due at termination, accurate wage statements, reimbursement of necessary employee expenses, unfair and unlawful business practices, and civil penalties under California's Private Attorneys General Act. Ulloa sought to represent current and former non-exempt employees of Securitas in California.

Securitas answered the complaint before filing its motion. It then moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal for failure to state a legally sufficient claim. Because the answer had already been filed, the court converted the motion into one under Rule 12(c), a motion for judgment on the pleadings. The court explained that the two motions use the same standard: accepting the complaint's factual allegations as true, the court asks whether the complaint states a plausible claim and whether the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Judicial Notice and Collective Bargaining Agreements

Securitas asked the court to take judicial notice of two collective bargaining agreements between Securitas and the Service Employees International Union, United Service Workers West. Securitas asserted that Ulloa's employment was covered by the agreements and argued that their grievance and arbitration provisions covered several wage-and-hour claims. Securitas also argued that the agreements barred Ulloa from bringing class claims except on an individual basis.

The court declined to take judicial notice of the agreements because Securitas did not explain why they were proper subjects of judicial notice. The court also declined to consider Securitas's alternative incorporation-by-reference argument, which was raised for the first time in reply. The court therefore denied the motion on the grounds based on the collective bargaining agreements.

Other Arguments and Disposition

Securitas also argued that claims one through eight lacked sufficient factual allegations, that the unfair-business-practices and Private Attorneys General Act claims were derivative and should be dismissed, and that Ulloa lacked standing to seek injunctive relief because he had not worked for Securitas since October 2022. Ulloa did not oppose these arguments. Instead, he requested permission to amend and stated that an amended complaint would remove the request for injunctive relief.

The court concluded that amendment would not necessarily be futile. It therefore granted in part and denied in part Securitas's Rule 12(c) motion. The court dismissed Ulloa's request for injunctive relief with prejudice. It dismissed claims one through ten with leave to amend and ordered Ulloa to file an amended complaint within 14 days of the order. Judge Ryu did not decide the underlying merits of the wage-and-hour allegations.