Gomez v. J. Jacobo Farm Labor Contractor, Inc., 1:15-cv-1489-AWI-MJS
Decision Date | 19 May 2016 |
Docket Number | 1:15-cv-1489-AWI-MJS |
Citation | 188 F.Supp.3d 986 |
Parties | Marisol Gomez, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. J. Jacobo Farm Labor Contractor, Inc., and Bedrosian Farms, LLC; and Does 1 through 20, inclusive, Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California |
Eric Sebastian Trabucco, Hector Rodriguez Martinez, Joseph Donald Sutton, Marco A. Palau, Stanley S. Mallison, Mallison & Martinez, Oakland, CA, Mario Martinez, Martinez Aguilasocho & Lynch APLC a Law Corporation, Bakersfield, CA, for Plaintiffs.
Gerardo Hernandez, Jr., Raimondo & Associates, Kevin V. Koligian, Andrew Hoon Woo, Littler Mendelson, P.C., Allison K. Pierce, Littler Mendelson, Fresno, CA, for Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO STRIKE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
Plaintiff Marisol Gomez ("Plaintiff") has filed separate motions, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f),1 to strike select affirmative defenses alleged by Defendant Bedrosian Farms, LLC ("Bedrosian") (Doc. 11), and Defendant J. Jacobo Farm Labor Contractor, Inc. ("Jacobo") (Doc. 30). The thrust of Plaintiff's argument in both instances is that many of the affirmative defenses alleged are (1) insufficiently detailed such that they are not in compliance with Rule 8 or (2) inapplicable to this case, as a matter of law. The matter is now fully briefed and ripe for decision.
Plaintiff Marisol Gomez alleges that she is (or was) employed by Defendants, as joint employers, to perform agricultural work "at various times during the Class Period[—reaching back four years prior to the filing of this action—] through approximately 2015." Compl. at ¶¶ 13, 23. On September 15, 2015, she filed a putative wage and hour class action on behalf of herself and other past and present non-exempt, agricultural and packing shed employees employed by Defendants. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants engaged in "a pattern of employer misconduct," centering on their "piece rate system of compensation, their meal and rest break practices, and their record-keeping procedures." Compl. at ¶¶ 22-23.
Plaintiff's complaint alleged nine causes of action: (1) violation of the Agricultural Workers Protection Act, 29 U.S.C. § 1801 et seq. ; (2) failure to pay minimum wages in violation of California Labor Code §§ 510, 1194, 1194.2, and 1197 ; (3) failure to pay overtime wages in violation of California Labor Code §§ 510, 1194, and 1194.2 ; (4) failure to provide timely and complete meal periods in violation of California Labor Code §§ 226.7 and 512 ; (5) failure to provide timely and complete rest periods in violation of California Labor Code §§ 226.7 and 512 ; (6) failure to pay wages of terminated or resigned employees in violation of California Labor Code §§ 201, 202, and 203 ; (7) failure to provide correct wage statements in violation of California Labor Code §§ 226(b), 1174, and 1175 ; (8) violation of Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), California Business and Professions Code §§ 17200 et seq. , premised on violation of the statutes underlying the first seven causes of action; and (9) an claim pursuant to the Private Attorney General Act ("PAGA"), California Labor Code §§ 2689 et seq. , seeking civil penalties and unpaid wages, also premised on violation of the statutes underlying the first seven causes of action.
On January 12, 2016, Bedrosian filed a timely answer, responding to each numbered paragraph of Plaintiff's complaint and asserting twenty-five affirmative defenses. Doc. 7. On January 26, 2016, Jacobo filed a timely answer, also responding to each numbered paragraph of Plaintiff's complaint and asserting twelve affirmative defenses. Doc. 9. Jacobo then filed an amended answer on March 4, 2016, without first having sought leave to amend from the Court. That answer contains ten affirmative defenses and is more detailed than the first. Doc. 29. Each of the affirmative defenses alleged by Defendant Bedrosian (and in Jacobo's first answer) is one sentence in length, conclusory, and largely devoid of detail. Jacobo's first amended answer provides some additional detail. Doc. 29 at 17-20.
This Court recently set forth the legal standard applicable to a motion to strike affirmative defenses:
Pursuant to Rule 12(f), the court may strike an "insufficient defense." The purpose of Rule 12(f) is to "avoid the expenditure of time and money that ... arise[s] from litigating spurious issues by dispensing with those issues prior to trial." Sidney–Vinstein v. A.H.Robins Co., 697 F.2d 880, 885 (9th Cir. 1983). However, because of the limited importance of pleading affirmative defenses in federal practice and because they often needlessly extend litigation, broad motions to strike rarely avoid the expenditure of time and money and are generally disfavored. SeeKratz Aerial Ag Service, Inc. v. Slykerman, 2016 WL 1090361, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 21, 2016) (citing Spring er v. Fair Isaac Corp., 2015 WL 7188234, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 16, 2015) ); Atcherley v. Hanna, 2016 WL 70028, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 6, 2016) (citation omitted).
United States v. Gibson Wine Co., 2016 WL 1626988, *4 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 25, 2016).
An affirmative defense is one that precludes liability even if all of the elements of the plaintiff's claim are proven. Sherwin – Williams Co. v. Courtesy Oldsmobile – Cadillac, Inc., 2016 WL 615335, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 16, 2016) (citation omitted). If a purported affirmative defense only addresses the elements of the cause of action, it is not an affirmative defense and it will be stricken as redundant. Sherwin – Williams, 2016 WL 615335 at *2 (citing Barnes v. AT&T Pension Ben. Plan, 718 F.Supp.2d 1167, 1173 (N.D. Cal. 2010) ; seeWhittlestone, Inc. v. Handi – Craft Co., 618 F.3d 970, 973–974 (9th Cir. 2010) ( ). The Gibson court continued:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Neylon v. Cnty. of Inyo
...An affirmative defense may be insufficient either as a matter of law or as a matter of pleading. Gomez v. J. Jacobo Farm Labor Contr., Inc., 188 F.Supp.3d 986, 991 (E.D. Cal. 2016). An affirmative defense is legally insufficient if it "lacks merit under any set of facts the defendant might ......
-
Vaquero v. Stoneledge Furniture LLC
...Relations ..., which is a department of California's Labor and Workforce Development Agency." (Gomez v. J. Jacobo Farm Labor Contractor, Inc. (E.D.Cal.2016) 188 F.Supp.3d 986, 997, fn. 13.)5 Subdivision 2(G) of Wage Order No. 7 defines "hours worked" as "the time during which an employee is......
-
Butcher v. City of Marysville, 2:18-cv-02765-JAM-CKD
...issue"; or merely addresses the elements of the cause of action. Sliger, 789 F. Supp. 2d at 1216 ; Gomez v. J. Jacobo Farm Labor Contractor, Inc., 188 F. Supp. 3d 986, 991 (E.D. Cal. 2016). A matter is immaterial if it "has no essential or important relationship to the claim for relief or t......
-
Ceasar v. Aguirre
...v. Navajo Cty., Ariz., 609 F.3d 1011, 1023 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing Wyshak, 607 F.2d at 827); Gomez v. J. Jacobo Farm Labor Contractor, Inc., 188 F. Supp. 3d 986, 991-93 (E.D. Cal. 2016). "The 'fair notice' required by the pleading standards only requires describing [an affirmative] defense ......