McKinnon v. City of Merced

• Decision Date: 17 December 2018
• Docket Number: 1:18-cv-01124-LJO-SAB
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California
• Parties: NATHANIEL MCKINNON et al., on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF MERCED, Defendant.

NATHANIEL MCKINNON et al., on behalf ofthemselves and all similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF MERCED, Defendant.

1:18-cv-01124-LJO-SAB

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

December 17, 2018

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS

(ECF No. 8)

I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT TO PARTIES AND COUNSEL

Judges in the Eastern District of California carry the heaviest caseloads in the nation, and this Court is unable to devote inordinate time and resources to individual cases and matters. Given the shortage of district judges and staff, this Court addresses only the arguments, evidence, and matters necessary to reach the decision in this order. The parties and counsel are encouraged to contact the offices of United States Senators Feinstein and Harris to address this Court's inability to accommodate the parties and this action. The parties are required to consider consent to conduct all further proceedings before a Magistrate Judge, whose schedules are far more realistic and accommodating to parties than that of U.S. Chief District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill, who must prioritize criminal and older civil cases.

Civil trials set before Chief Judge O'Neill trail until he becomes available and are subject to suspension mid-trial to accommodate criminal matters. Civil trials are no longer reset to a later date if Chief Judge O'Neill is unavailable on the original date set for trial. Moreover, this Court's Fresno Division randomly and without advance notice reassigns civil actions to U.S. District Judges throughout the nation to serve as visiting judges. In the absence of Magistrate Judge consent, this action is subject to reassignment to a U.S. District Judge from inside or outside the Eastern District of California.

II. INTRODUCTION

This matter concerns the case filed by Plaintiffs Nathaniel McKinnon, Courtney Bohanan, Edward Drum, Timothy Gaches, Joseph Perez, and Luis R. Solis ("Plaintiffs") seeking declaratory judgment on their own behalf, and on behalf of others similarly situated, for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq. On September 14, 2018, Defendant City of Merced ("Defendant" or "City of Merced") filed the instant motion to dismiss. ECF No. 8. Plaintiffs filed an opposition on October 10, 2018. ECF No. 12. Defendant filed a reply on October 17, 2018. ECF No. 15. The Court determined the matter to be suitable for decision on the papers under Local Rule 230(g), and took the motion under submission on October 19, 2018. ECF No. 17. For the following reasons, Defendant's motion is DENIED.

III. REQUESTS FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

Defendant requests that the Court take judicial notice of a 2006 Department of Labor ("DOL") opinion letter and the DOL Wage and Hour Division Field Operations Handbook, Section 32d03h. ECF No. 8-2 at 1-2. Plaintiffs ask that the Court take judicial notice of portions of the transcript for a July 26, 2018, hearing on a motion for relief from a denial of summary judgment in Lewis v. County of Colusa, Case No. 2:16-cv-01745-VC, a July 26, 2018, minute order denying the defendant's motion for relief in the same case, and a 1999 DOL opinion letter. ECF No. 12-1 at 1-2.

Generally, when evidence outside of the pleadings are presented in a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), a court must treat the motion as one for summary judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(d). When, however, the evidence presented is a "matter[] of public record," the court may take judicial notice of adjudicative facts under Federal Rule of Evidence 201 without converting the Rule 12 motion into one for summary judgment. United States v. 14.02 Acres of Land More or Less in Fresno County, 547 F.3d 943, 955 (9th Cir. 2008). Rule 201 provides, in pertinent part, that a judicially noticed fact must be one"not subject to reasonable dispute because it . . . can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned." Fed. R. Evid. 201(b)(2). Judicial notice is appropriate for records and "reports of administrative bodies." Interstate Natural Gas Co. v. S. Cal. Gas Co., 209 F.2d 380, 385 (9th Cir. 1954). A court may take judicial notice of papers filed in federal or state courts, Estate of Blue v. Cty. of Los Angeles, 120 F.3d 982, 984 (9th Cir. 1997), and court proceedings "if those proceedings have a direct relation to matters at issue." United States ex rel. Robinson Rancheria Citizens Council v. Borneo, Inc., 971 F.2d 244, 248 (9th Cir. 1992). A court cannot take judicial notice of a fact that is subject to reasonable dispute. Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 689-90 (9th Cir. 2001).

The DOL opinion letters from 1999 and 2006 and the DOL Field Operations Handbook are publicly available documents produced by the DOL, and as such are proper subjects of judicial notice. As the records of court proceedings directly related to this one, and as filings in a federal court, the materials from Lewis v. Cty. of Colusa, Case No. 2:16-cv-01745-VC, are also judicially noticeable. See Farris v. Cty. of Riverside, 667 F. Supp. 2d 1151, 1155 (C.D. Cal. 2009) (taking judicial notice of court documents). Therefore, Plaintiffs' and Defendant's motions for judicial notice are GRANTED, and the Court shall take notice of the aforementioned documents.

IV. BACKGROUND

The following facts are drawn from the complaint in this action, and are accepted as true only for the purposes of ruling on the instant motion to dismiss. Cousins v. Lockyer, 568 F.3d 1063, 1067 (9th Cir. 2009). Plaintiffs are police officers and sergeants employed by Defendant City of Merced and are covered by the FLSA. ECF No. 2 ¶¶ 3, 9, 16-21. Pursuant to a Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") between the City of Merced and the Merced Association of Police Sergeants and another MOU between the City of Merced and the Merced Police Officers Association, officers and sergeants employed by Defendant are entitled to overtime only after working 80 hours over a 14-day work period. Id. ¶ 9. Twelve holidays per year are designated for pay purposes. Id. ¶ 10. Sergeants and officers receive pay equal to their "straight time" hourly rate as "pay equal to and in lieu of time off" when aholiday falls on a normally assigned day off or when the officer or sergeant is scheduled to work on that day. Id. ¶¶ 11-12; Ex. B at 9. Additionally, an officer or sergeant who is scheduled to work on a holiday is paid their straight time rate for each hour they actually work, for the first eight hours worked. Id. ¶ 11.

For the three years prior to the filing of the complaint in this action, Defendant has not included holiday pay in the calculation of Plaintiffs' regular rate of pay. Id. ¶ 14. Plaintiffs contend that the pay should have been included in the regular rate of pay, and Defendant's failure to do so has resulted in underpayments for overtime hours worked in violation of the FLSA. Id. ¶¶ 14, 26.

V. LEGAL STANDARD

A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) challenges the legal sufficiency of the opposing party's pleadings. Navarro v. Block, 250 F.3d 729, 732 (9th Cir. 2001). Dismissal of an action under Rule 12(b)(6) is proper where there is either a "lack of a cognizable legal theory or the absence of sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable legal theory." Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dept., 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). When considering a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6), all allegations of material fact must be accepted as true and construed in the light most favorable to the pleading party. Cahill v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 80 F.3d 336, 337-38 (9th Cir. 1996). The inquiry is generally limited to the allegations made in the complaint. Lazy Y Ranch LTD v. Behrens, 546 F.3d 580, 588 (9th Cir. 2008).

Rule 8(a)(2) "requires only 'a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief' in order to 'give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.'" Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). To overcome a Rule 12(b)(6) challenge, the complaint must allege "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. A claim is plausible on its face when "the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). A plausible claim is one which provides more than "a sheer possibility that a defendant has actedunlawfully." Id. A claim which is possible, but which is not supported by enough facts to "nudge [it] across the line from conceivable to plausible . . . must be dismissed." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570.

A complaint facing a Rule 12(b)(6) challenge "does not need detailed factual allegations [but] a plaintiff's obligation to provide the 'grounds' of his 'entitlement to relief' requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the element of a cause of action will not do." Id. at 555 (internal citations omitted). In essence, "a complaint . . . must contain either direct or inferential allegations respecting all the material elements necessary to sustain recovery under some viable legal theory." Id. at 562. To the extent that any defect in the pleadings can be cured by the allegation of additional facts, the plaintiff should be afforded leave to amend, unless the pleading "could not possibly be cured by the allegation of other facts." Cook, Perkiss and Liehe, Inc. v. N. Cal. Collection Serv. Inc., 911 F.2d 242, 247 (9th Cir. 1990).

VI. ANALYSIS

Plaintiffs' claim for unpaid overtime is predicated on the allegation that Defendants improperly failed to include holiday pay when calculating Plaintiffs' regular rate, and therefore underpaid Plaintiffs for overtime based on that regular rate. Defendant moves to dismiss Plaint...