Gregg v. Bohemian Club

Background

This putative class action concerns wage-and-hour claims by valets who worked at Monastery Camp, one of the camps at the Bohemian Grove. The plaintiffs alleged that Monastery Camp, Bohemian Club, and Pomella LLC jointly employed them. Their claims included alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, California wage-and-hour laws, California’s Unfair Competition Law, and California’s Private Attorneys General Act.

The plaintiffs alleged that the camps hired, fired, paid, and directed the valets. They also alleged that Bohemian Club imposed rules on camp staff, including requirements concerning badges, phones, dress, and designated areas, and that Pomella processed payroll. Bohemian Club and Pomella moved to dismiss the claims against them under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint alleges enough facts to state a legally recognized claim.

Joint-employer allegations

The court considered whether the plaintiffs plausibly alleged that Bohemian Club or Pomella was a joint employer under California law. California law permits joint-employer liability when a defendant controls wages, hours, or working conditions; knowingly allows work to occur without preventing it; or creates a common-law employment relationship.

The court found the allegations insufficient under each test. The complaint did not allege that Bohemian Club or Pomella had the power to hire or fire the plaintiffs, controlled their wages or hours, or controlled when their workdays began and ended. The court also found that general rules concerning the Grove, such as dress and phone restrictions, did not show the required control over the valets’ employment. The allegations identified the camp and its captain—not Bohemian Club or Pomella—as controlling hiring, firing, pay, and the details of the valets’ work.

The court likewise found that the plaintiffs had not alleged that Bohemian Club or Pomella knew of and failed to prevent the work, or that either entity directed or supervised the plaintiffs onsite. The complaint also lacked sufficient facts showing that either defendant had the general right to control the manner and means of the valets’ work, as required for a common-law employment relationship.

The court then applied the Fair Labor Standards Act’s joint-employer factors: the power to hire and fire, supervision and control of work schedules or employment conditions, responsibility for the rate and method of payment, and maintenance of employment records. The court concluded that the complaint did not allege that Bohemian Club or Pomella satisfied any of these factors. It found that general venue rules, including background checks, dress requirements, and restrictions on cell-phone and social-media use, were not enough to establish employer control.

Unfair Competition Law claim

The plaintiffs’ seventh cause of action under California’s Unfair Competition Law depended on their California Labor Code claims. Because the court found that the plaintiffs had not stated California Labor Code claims against Bohemian Club or Pomella based on joint-employer liability, it also found that the derivative Unfair Competition Law claim failed against those defendants.

Leave to amend and disposition

The plaintiffs did not oppose the motions to dismiss because of what their counsel described as an oversight. The court ordered limited supplemental briefing on whether the complaint could be amended. The plaintiffs repeated existing allegations but did not identify new facts that would support joint-employer liability. The court therefore concluded that amendment would be futile.

The court granted both motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim. It dismissed Bohemian Club and Pomella with prejudice and denied leave to amend as to those defendants. The plaintiffs may file an amended pleading omitting Bohemian Club and Pomella within 28 days. The court stated that no new claims or defendants may be added without leave of court or stipulation of Monastery Camp. The court did not reach Bohemian Club’s alternative requests to dismiss for failure to join a necessary party or to strike the class allegations.