Navarrette v. 5 - Keys Charter Sch.

• Decision Date: 10 June 2021
• Docket Number: Case No. 20-cv-02579-PJH
• Parties: TOMAS NAVARRETTE, Plaintiff, v. 5 - KEYS CHARTER SCHOOL, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of California

TOMAS NAVARRETTE, Plaintiff, v. 5 - KEYS CHARTER SCHOOL, et al., Defendants.

Case No. 20-cv-02579-PJH

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

June 10, 2021

ORDER RE: DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS AND/OR TRANSFER

Dkt. Nos. 36, 37

Before the court are (1) defendant Five Keys Schools and Programs' motion to dismiss (Dkt. 37-1) and (2) defendant Butte County's motion to dismiss, or in the alternative, transfer for improper venue, or in the alternative, transfer for convenience (Dkt. 36-1). The motions are fully briefed and suitable for decision without oral argument. Having read the parties' papers and carefully considered their arguments and the relevant legal authority, and good cause appearing, the court hereby rules as follows.

I. Background

A. Parties

Plaintiff Tomas Navarrette (aka Mr. T. Navarrette El), proceeding pro se, is currently incarcerated at Santa Rita Jail. This lawsuit is unrelated to the conditions of or reasons for his incarceration. Defendant Five Keys Schools and Programs (erroneously named by plaintiff as "5-Keys Charter School," and hereafter "Five Keys") is a San Francisco-based nonprofit corporation and charter school that formerly employed Mr. Navarrette. Defendant County of Butte, California ("Butte County") is a local California government. Defendants Oscar Garcia and Dave Bates, sued in their individual capacities, were plaintiff's supervisors during his employment at Five Keys. Garcia and Bates ("individual defendants") are named on page five of the amended complaint, but summonses were not issued for them and they have not otherwise appeared in this action. California Department of Transportation (erroneously sued and served as "State of California (Caltrans)") was originally named as a defendant but as already been dismissed from this case. Dkt. 55.

B. Factual Narrative

Mr. Navarrette was employed by Five Keys from July 2, 2019, until December 18, 2019, as a supervisor for Cal-Crew, a program established to perform road and highway cleanup and maintenance. FAC (Dkt. 30) at 3-4, ¶ 2, 4. The program was a new venture for Five Keys to perform roadside maintenance work on behalf of Caltrans. Dkt. 30 at 6. Mr. Navarrette's supervisors at Five Keys were Oscar Garcia and Dave Bates. Dkt. 30 at 5.

Mr. Navarrette's regular work hours were 6:45 am to 3:15 pm, Monday through Friday. Dkt. 30 at 7. Supervisors Garcia and Bates strictly enforced the work hours. Dkt. 30 at 11 ("My clock out was 3:15 pm explicitly. Which was absolutely and positively enforced by A) Oscar Garcia and B) David Bates.").

Mr. Navarrette had difficulty performing all the work required for his position within the designated workday, and he worked many hours beyond the time he was supposed to clock out. Dkt. 30 at 11-15. After his first three weeks of work, Mr. Navarrette told Garcia and Bates that he regularly worked after hours to complete his work, and Bates instructed him to clock out at 3:15 pm because there was no money in the budget for overtime. Dkt. 30 at 15. When Mr. Navarrette and his colleague proposed "banking" overtime hours to take time off later, they were told that the only solution was "to increase [their] efficiency." Dkt. 30 at 16-17. Mr. Navarrette protested, stating that he did not want to work overtime unpaid and that he did not have the time to do so because of personal obligations. Dkt. 30 at 17. Mr. Navarrette states that "no solution" was offered to his complaints, but that he nonetheless continued to work off the clock. Dkt. 30 at 18. Mr.Navarrette states that "every 3-4 weeks" he would discuss the overtime issue with Garcia, and he was told "to be more efficient." Dkt. 30 at 20.

Mr. Navarrette alleges that during the time of his employment, defendant Butte County contracted with Five Keys and its subdivision Cal-Crew in an official capacity.¹ Dkt. 30 at 5. Moreover, Mr. Navarrette generally alleges that defendant Butte County was directly involved in the scheduling, regulations, functions, and day to day operations of the Cal-Crew division. Dkt. 30 at 5. Aside from these allegations, Mr. Navarrette does not allege any specific involvement of Butte County in the alleged denial of overtime pay for hours worked.

Mr. Navarrette was terminated on December 18, 2019. Dkt. 30 at 4. Soon after his termination, he demanded payment for unpaid overtime hours worked and provided Five Keys with a schedule of the hours worked. Dkt. 30 at 21. Five Keys compensated Mr. Navarrette for 20 hours at a rate of $36 per hour, or 1.5 times his standard hourly rate of $24 per hour, for a total of $720. Dkt. 30 at 21. In his prayer for relief, Mr. Navarrette seeks payment for the additional overtime hours he worked, some 418 hours beyond the 20 already compensated, plus $35,052 in "pain and suffering." Dkt. 30 at 33. Mr. Navarrette seeks $10,000 in punitive damages and declaratory relief as well. Dkt. 30 at 33.

C. Procedural History

Mr. Navarrette filed his original complaint on April 14, 2020. Dkt. 1. The original complaint named in the caption defendants Five Keys (as his former employer), along with Butte County and Caltrans (as entities contracting with Five Keys for Caltrans maintenance projects). Dkt. 1. The phrase "et al." is also included in the list ofdefendants, but it is unclear from the complaint who might be included within the "and others" designation. Following some delay, defendants Five Keys, Butte County, and Caltrans were eventually served. In response to a motion to dismiss, Mr. Navarrette filed a first amended complaint ("FAC"), the currently operative complaint, on February 5, 2021. Dkt. 30.

Butte County moved to dismiss or transfer on March 1, 2021. Dkt. 36. Five Keys moved to dismiss the FAC on March 2, 2021. Dkt. 37. These two are the motions now under consideration.

Five Keys opposed Butte County's motion to transfer by brief filed March 15. Dkt. 40. Butte County replied in support of transfer on March 18. Dkt. 42.

Five Keys filed a "reply" on March 23 in support of its motion to dismiss, arguing that the motion to dismiss should be granted because plaintiff had missed the deadline to file a response. Dkt. 44.

Mr. Navarrette then filed motions for extensions of time to respond to the motions of both Butte County and Five Keys. The court granted the extensions. Dkt. 47. Mr. Navarrette filed his oppositions within the extension period on April 7, 2021 (they were not entered by the clerk until April 16). Dkt. 50 & 51.

Separately on April 7, 2021, Caltrans filed its own motion to dismiss. Dkt. 48. This response from Caltrans followed months of confusion and protests of imperfect service by the U.S. Marshals Service. See Dkt. 29, 35, & 39. Mr. Navarrette filed a response to the motion from Caltrans on April 22, stating that he did not object to the removal of Caltrans from the lawsuit. Dkt. 52. The court dismissed Caltrans by order entered April 23. Dkt. 55.

Finally, on April 23, Five Keys filed a reply for its motion to dismiss (Dkt. 53), but Butte County did not file a reply. Mr. Navarrette filed an additional "reply" in response to Five Keys' reply brief, entered by the clerk on May 13, 2021 (Dkt. 56).²

No summonses were issued for defendants Garcia and Bates. Five Keys says about them in a footnote, "Garcia and Bates have not appeared, and it is unclear whether Garcia and Bates are even aware of the complaint. Nonetheless, Five Keys believes that the Court should dismiss all claims, including those against Garcia and Bates, at least on the grounds discussed herein." Five Keys MTD at 7, n.1 (Dkt. 37-1 at 7).

In sum, this order addresses (1) the motions to dismiss of defendants Five Keys and Butte County, and (2) the court's sua sponte dismissal of defendants Garcia and Bates. Because Butte County is dismissed, the court does not address its alternative requests for transfer of venue.

II. Motions to Dismiss

Both Five Keys and Butte County move to dismiss the FAC for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

Mr. Navarrette advances the following claims in his FAC: violation of Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Equal Protection); violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") (29 U.S.C. § 203(1)); violation of California Labor Code section 510; and violation of rights as an "internationally protected person" under Title 18 U.S.C.A. § 1116. Unpaid overtime hours serve as the foundation for all the claims. Mr. Navarrette advances the following theories:

• First cause of action: Mr. Navarrette alleges his Equal Protection rights were violated by defendants' failure to compensate his overtime hours or allow for a flexible work schedule, unlike other Five Keys employees;

• Second and third causes of action: Mr. Navarrette alleges that he is owed for the three hours of overtime he worked every single day of the six months he worked for the Cal-Crew program; and

• Fourth cause of action: Mr. Navarrette alleges that his dignity as an"internationally protected person" was violated by defendants' failure to compensate him for overtime hours worked.

These arguments are discussed in turn.

A. Legal Standard

A motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) tests for the legal sufficiency of the claims alleged in the complaint. Ileto v. Glock, 349 F.3d 1191, 1199-1200 (9th Cir. 2003). Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, which requires that a complaint include a "short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief," Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), a complaint may be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) if the plaintiff fails to state a cognizable legal theory, or has not alleged sufficient facts to support a cognizable legal theory. Somers v. Apple, Inc., 729 F.3d 953, 959 (9th Cir. 2013).

While the court is to accept as true all the factual allegations in the complaint, legally conclusory statements, not supported by actual factual allegations, need not be accepted. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009). The complaint...