Rendon v. Infinity Fasteners, Inc.

• Decision Date: 13 December 2022
• Docket Number: 1:20-cv-01538-ADA-BAM
• Parties: ERIC RENDON, individually on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. INFINITY FASTENERS, INC., a Kansas Corporation; and DOES 1-50; Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California

ERIC RENDON, individually on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
v.
INFINITY FASTENERS, INC., a Kansas Corporation; and DOES 1-50; Defendants.

No. 1:20-cv-01538-ADA-BAM

United States District Court, E.D. California

December 13, 2022

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS, DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO STRIKE, AND GRANTING DEFENDANT'S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE (ECF. NO. 7) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S REQUESTS FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE AND SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING (ECF NOS. 9, 11)

This matter is before the Court on a motion to dismiss, a motion to strike, and a request for judicial notice filed by defendant Infinity Fasteners, Inc. (ECF No. 7.) Plaintiff Eric Rendon has also filed a request for judicial notice (ECF No. 9) and for supplemental briefing (ECF No. 11). For the reasons explained below, the Court will grant, in part, and deny, in part, Defendant's motion to dismiss; deny Defendant's motion to strike; and grant Defendant's request for judicial notice. The Court denies Plaintiffs request for judicial notice as moot. (ECF No. 9.) The Court denies Plaintiff's request for supplemental briefing. (ECF No. 11.)

1

BACKGROUND

A. Procedural History

Plaintiff Eric Rendon filed a complaint in the County of Fresno on July 14, 2020, against defendant Infinity Fasteners, Inc. and Does 1 through 50, alleging violations of California's Labor Code and California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL), and requesting equitable remedies in addition to prescribed statutory penalties. (ECF No. 1 at 63-80.) Prior, on April 10, 2020, Plaintiff sent notice of its claims to the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA). (ECF No. 9 at 8.)^[1] Plaintiff sent additional notice to the LWDA on July 10, 2020, 91 days after his initial notice. LWDA never responded. (ECF No. 9 at 8.)^[2] Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (FAC) and Errata on September 17, 2020, and September 18, 2020, respectively-69 days after Plaintiff's second LWDA notice. (ECF No. 1 at 1-2.) Defendant removed to this Court on October 29, 2020, under diversity jurisdiction. (ECF No. 1.)

Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and others, to the extent investigation reveals additional aggrieved employees, under the Private Attorney General Act (PAGA) of California Labor Code^[3] §§ 2698, et seq. (ECF No. 1 at 63.) Plaintiff alleges nine causes of action

2

against Defendant:^[4] (1) retaliation for complaints of unsafe working conditions (§ 6310(a), (c)); (2) retaliation for complaint of illegal activity (§ 1102.5(b), (h)); (3) retaliation for complaint of unpaid wages (§ 98.6); (4) withholding of wages (§§ 222, 225.5); (5) waiting time penalties (§§ 201-03); (6) failure to reimburse for travel and other expenses (§ 2802); (7) accounting, an equitable remedy; (8) unfair competition law (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17202-04); and (9) PAGA civil penalties (§ 2698 et seq.). (ECF No. 1 at 63-80.) Plaintiff prays for attorney's fees and costs (§§ 218.5, 2699, 2802; Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 1021.5) and punitive damages.

On December 3, 2020, Defendant filed this motion to dismiss and motion to strike contending: (1) Plaintiff failed to allege facts sufficient to state cognizable claims, warranting dismissal; (2) Plaintiff's ninth cause of action must be dismissed for redundancy; (3) and Plaintiff's prayer for punitive damages must be stricken for failure to adequately plead the claim. (ECF No. 7-1.) Plaintiff timely filed an opposition and request for judicial notice (ECF No. 9),^[5]and Defendant timely replied (ECF No. 10). On January 6, 2021, Plaintiff requested to submit supplemental briefing concerning new case law impacting the party's pleading. (ECF No. 11.)^[6]

B. Factual Background

The following facts are discernable from Plaintiff's FAC and LWDA complaints. Defendant hired Plaintiff on or around September 27, 2018, as an outside salesperson and to

3

occasionally work in Defendant's warehouse, fabricating products. (ECF No. 1 at 64.) Defendant required Plaintiff to drive his own personal vehicle, performing outside sales. (Id. at 65-66.) Defendant provided Plaintiff a gas card, which he used for his personal vehicle. (Id. at 76.) Plaintiff maintains Defendant paid him some reimbursement for driving his personal vehicle but did not fully reimburse him for all work-related expenses, including ordinary wear and tear, short-term maintenance, and long-term maintenance. (Id. at 65-66.)

During his employment, Plaintiff made oral complaints that he was not receiving his full commissions. (ECF No. 1 at 72.) Plaintiff repeatedly asked his supervisor, Gene Kelly, to confirm the accuracy of his wages and for a breakdown of his earned commissions. (Id. at 64.) Plaintiff alleges he never received a signed commission agreement or computation of how his commissions were calculated. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges Defendant took money out of his commission sales and that Plaintiff is owed additional commissions. (Id.)

During Plaintiff's employment, Plaintiff's brother-Justin Rendon-made several complaints about unsafe work conditions, harassment, and a hostile work environment. (ECF No. 1 at 64.) Both believed they were making complaints concerning violations of federal, state, or local law, including possible violations of Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) (29 CFR § 1910, et seq.); the California Health and Safety Code; and Cal-OSHA regulations (Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations). (Id. at 65.) The complaints included: (1) the chamfering machine used to fabricate bolts, etc., was unsafe (the wheel would fall off); (2) employees were not provided appropriate Personal Protective Equipment (PPE), such as gloves and eye protection; (3) the miter saw was maintained in an unsafe condition and posed a risk to employee safety; (4) the warehouse lacked ventilation, and exposed employees to extreme temperatures; (5) the forklift used in the warehouse to move heavy items was defective and unsafe; (6) the racks and shelves used to store inventory, tools, and equipment, were not maintained and posed a significant safety risk, including significant overhead exposure; and (7) employees were directed to use a forklift and pallet to raise employees to higher level to retrieve items, posing a significant danger to employees. (Id. at 6566.) Plaintiff specified various Cal-OSHA provisions regulating each area of unsafe working

4

conditions in his complaint, alleging Defendant was in violation of: 8 CCR §§ 3556 (tools to be maintained in safe working conditions), 3380 (PPE), 3382 (eye and face protection), 3384 (hand protection), 5142 and 5152 (ventilation), 3649-3669 (forklifts and industrial trucks), 4231 and 4243 (miter saw and metal cutting equipment); 3241 (storage racks); and 3657 (elevating employees with forklift). (Id. at 65.) Plaintiff alleges Defendant did not take these complaints seriously. (Id.) In response, one supervisor replied, “[s]top acting like a [bitch]!” (Id. at 24, 65.)^[7]

Plaintiff's brother resigned after making a complaint on August 27, 2019. (ECF No. 1 at 71.) Plaintiff alleges his brother resigned due to a hostile work environment and unsafe working conditions. (Id.) Plaintiff was terminated one week after his brother's resignation. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges the reasons given for his termination were “not credible.” (Id.) Plaintiff alleges he and his brother's complaints were substantial motivating reasons for the adverse treatment he received and the adverse employment action-Plaintiff's termination. (ECF No. 1 at 72.) Plaintiff alleges the adverse treatment he experienced was being subject to racial slurs and being teased for his physical appearance. (ECF No. 7-2 at 11.)^[8]

Plaintiff alleges he was not paid his full commissions-10% of the gross profits of a sale (ECF No. 7-2 at 5)-at the time of his termination. (ECF No. 1 at 75.) Plaintiff alleges he was required to sign and acknowledge he did receive his full commissions in order to receive his final paycheck on September 5, 2019, however, Plaintiff alleges he was awaiting a payout from a big commission he worked on up until his termination that he never received. (ECF No. 7-2 at 5.)

Further, Plaintiff alleges Defendant's managing employee threatened to take money out of Plaintiff's sales commissions if Plaintiff could not sell equipment that had been in the warehouse since before Plaintiff was an employee. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges he could not calculate the exact number of wages owed because of Defendant's refusal to provide him an accounting of books and records necessary to determine the owed amount. (ECF No. 1 at 76-77.) Plaintiff alleges

5

Defendant possesses records from which the amount of compensation due and owing to him could be calculated within a reasonable degree of certainty. (Id. at 76.)

Plaintiff alleges Defendant systematically deprived employees of unpaid and regular wages. (ECF No. 7-2 at 5.) Plaintiff alleges Defendant held reckless disregard for the protection of its employees to a level warranting punitive damages. (ECF No. 1 at 73.) Plaintiff alleges Defendant engaged in unlawful activity, reaping unfair benefits and illegal profits at Plaintiff's expense. (Id. at 77-78.)

LEGAL STANDARD

A. Motion to Dismiss

A motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) tests the legal sufficiency of a complaint. See N. Star Int'lv. Ariz. Corp. Comm 'n, 720 F.2d 578, 581 (9th Cir. 1983). “Dismissal can be based on the lack of a cognizable legal theory or the absence of sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable legal theory.” Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). A claim for relief must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). Though Rule 8(a) does not require detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff is required to...