Erblich v. Sasaki

Background

Mitchell Erblich sued Netlist and two Netlist executives in state court, alleging violations of federal and California wage-and-hour laws. Netlist removed the case to federal court. After an earlier dismissal, Erblich filed a second amended complaint naming Netlist and Raj Gandhi as defendants.

Erblich alleged that he worked as a software programmer for Netlist from February 22, 2022, through June 10, 2022, at an hourly rate of $85. He alleged that Netlist required him to work more than eight hours per day and forty hours per week without paying overtime. He identified specific examples, including working additional hours on March 6 and May 30, 2022. He also alleged that he missed required meal breaks, was not paid for time spent reading a required book and watching a required security video, and was not reimbursed for about $4,000 in computers required for his work.

The claims alleged violations of California overtime, wage-statement, meal-period, expense-reimbursement, and unfair-competition laws, as well as the federal Fair Labor Standards Act's overtime requirements. The defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that the allegations remained too conclusory. They also raised the fact that Gandhi had not been served.

Service on Gandhi

The court did not dismiss the claims against Gandhi for the delay in attempting service. It ordered Erblich to file a written explanation within six weeks showing why the case against Gandhi should not be dismissed for failure to serve him. The court stated that service still had to be completed.

Claims against Netlist

Applying the pleading standard that requires enough factual detail to make a claim plausible rather than merely possible, the court held that Erblich had pleaded enough facts to proceed against Netlist. The specific overtime examples, allegations about missed meal breaks, and notice to Netlist's human-resources department supported the overtime and meal-break claims at the pleading stage.

The court also held that the expense-reimbursement claim was adequately pleaded because Erblich identified the computers he allegedly had to purchase, alleged that they were required for his work, and alleged that Netlist did not reimburse him. The court said the remaining claims were derivative claims and survived to the extent their underlying claims survived.

Claims against Gandhi

The court held that the allegations against Gandhi were too conclusory to show that he was personally responsible for the alleged violations or qualified as an employer under the relevant laws. The court therefore dismissed the claims against Gandhi with leave to amend within three weeks. Any amended complaint had to include a marked comparison showing the changes from the current complaint.

Disposition

The court granted the motion to dismiss in part, dismissed the claims against Gandhi with leave to amend within three weeks, ordered a written showing regarding service on Gandhi within six weeks, and left the claims against Netlist surviving. The order stated that it disposed of ECF No. 27.