Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings
Case No. CU24-05970
Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings
Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings is granted with leave to amend.
Statutory causes of action must be pleaded with particularity. (Covenant Care, Inc. v. Superior Court (2004) 32 Cal.4th 771, 790; Lopez v. S. Cal. Rapid Transit Dist. (1985) 40 Cal.3d 780, 795.) “[T]he plaintiff must set forth facts in his complaint sufficiently detailed and specific to support an inference that each of the statutory elements of liability is satisfied.” (Mittenhuber v. City of Redondo Beach (1979) 142 Cal.App.3d 1, 5.) Although less specificity may be warranted when a defendant has superior knowledge of the facts, the pleading must still provide sufficient notice of the issues to enable the defendant to prepare a defense. (Doe v. City of Los Angeles (2007) 42 Cal.4th 531, 549-550.)
Plaintiff has not pleaded facts sufficient to provide Defendant notice of the issues it will have to defend. Plaintiff concludes that Defendant required Plaintiff and other employees to “work” during meal and rest periods, but does not articulate what duties were required to be performed or the circumstances surrounding the interruption of any meal or rest periods. (FAC, ¶¶ 52, 61.) Plaintiff concludes that Defendant failed to pay minimum wages, but does not articulate how the wages paid fell below minimum wages. (FAC, ¶ 67.)
Plaintiff concludes that earned wages were not paid within 72 hours of termination of employment, but does not specify what wages were not paid. (FAC, ¶ 72.) Plaintiff concludes that Defendant failed to provide complete and accurate wage statements that did not provide the total number of hours worked, but does not allege how this missing information caused injury. (FAC, ¶¶ 79-80.) Plaintiff concludes that Defendant did not reimburse employees for all necessary expenditures incurred by employees, but does not identify the nature of any expenses incurred by any employee or the circumstances under which the expenses were incurred. (FAC, ¶ 85.)
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
Having failed to plead the underlying Labor Code violations with adequate specificity, Plaintiff’s derivative claims for PAGA penalties and for violation of the UCL also fail.
The court notes that because Plaintiff is an “emergency ambulance employee”, Plaintiff is required by law to “remain reachable by a portable communications device throughout the entirety of each work shift.” (Lab. Code § 887(a).) Consequently, any claim that Plaintiff was required to work during her meal and rest periods because she was on call would be without merit. This requirement does not supersede, or exempt emergency ambulance employees from, Labor Code section 226.7. (See, Lab. Code § 885(a) [“All emergency ambulance employees are hereby entitled to meal and rest periods as prescribed elsewhere”].) Instead, if an employee is contacted during their meal or rest period, that particular meal or rest period interrupted by the contact would not count toward the meal or rest period the employee is entitled to during the work shift. (Lab. Code § 887(b).)
Plaintiff shall file and serve any second amended complaint within ten days of the date of the hearing.
CITY OF BENICIA v. CHARLA A. WIMMER