Ulloa II v. Securitas Security Services USA, Inc.

Background

Michael Angel Ulloa II filed a putative class action against his former employer, Securitas Security Services USA, Inc. The complaint alleges violations of California wage-and-hour laws involving meal periods, rest periods, overtime, minimum wages, wages due at termination, reimbursement of necessary business expenses, unfair business practices, and civil penalties under California’s Private Attorneys General Act. Ulloa seeks to represent current and former non-exempt employees of Securitas in California during the proposed class period.

Ulloa worked as a Flex Officer from May 2022 through October 2022. The case was originally filed in state court, removed to federal court, and previously dismissed on an earlier motion, with leave to amend as to the claims. The court had dismissed the earlier request for injunctive relief with prejudice. Ulloa then filed the first amended complaint, which Securitas challenged again under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), the rule allowing dismissal for failure to state a legally sufficient claim.

Judicial Notice and Materials Outside the Complaint

Securitas asked the court to take judicial notice of two collective bargaining agreements between Securitas and Service Employees International Union, United Service Workers West. Judicial notice allows a court to accept certain facts without requiring formal proof when they are not reasonably disputable. Securitas argued that the agreements covered Ulloa’s employment.

The court declined to take judicial notice of the agreements. It explained that the cases Securitas cited involved agreements that plaintiffs had referred to in their complaints, attached to their complaints, or did not appear to oppose the court’s consideration of. Those circumstances were not present here. The court also declined to consider Securitas’s incorporation-by-reference argument because it was raised for the first time in the reply brief and, in any event, the agreements did not form the basis of Ulloa’s complaint. The court further stated that declarations submitted by Securitas about Ulloa’s employment could not be considered on a motion testing the legal sufficiency of the complaint.

Arguments on the Motion

Securitas argued that the collective bargaining agreements required Ulloa to use internal grievance procedures or arbitration for claims involving meal periods, rest breaks, unpaid wages, unreimbursed expenses, and overtime. Securitas also argued that the claims were preempted by Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act because they allegedly required substantial interpretation of the agreements. Finally, Securitas asked the court to dismiss or strike the class claims, asserting that the union had waived employees’ rights to bring class or collective actions.

Ruling

The court denied the motion to dismiss the first amended complaint. It based that ruling on the fact that Securitas’s arguments relied on materials outside the complaint that Securitas had not established were appropriate for judicial notice. The order therefore did not dismiss the amended complaint or resolve the asserted agreement-based defenses. Securitas was ordered to file an answer within 21 days of the order. The initial case-management conference was continued to February 7, 2024.