Rubang v. United Airlines, Inc.

• Decision Date: 29 July 2019
• Docket Number: No. 2:18-cv-2352 MCE DB PS,2:18-cv-2352 MCE DB PS
• Parties: GONZALO R. RUBANG, JR., Plaintiff, v. UNITED AIRLINES, INC., et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California

GONZALO R. RUBANG, JR., Plaintiff, v. UNITED AIRLINES, INC., et al., Defendants.

No. 2:18-cv-2352 MCE DB PS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

July 29, 2019

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Plaintiff, Gonzalo R. Rubang, Jr., is proceeding pro se in this action. Therefore, the matter was referred to the undersigned in accordance with Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Pending before the court is defendant United Airlines, Inc.'s ("defendant") motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 9.)

For the reasons stated below the undersigned will recommend that defendant's motion to dismiss be granted and plaintiff's first amended complaint be dismissed without further leave to amend.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, commenced this action on August 29, 2018, by filing a complaint and a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF Nos. 1 & 2.) On October 26, 2018, the undersigned dismissed plaintiff's complaint with leave to amend. (ECF No. 3.) Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint on November 5, 2018. (ECF No. 4.) Therein, it appears that plaintiff is alleging that defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 201 to 209 ("FLSA"); committed fraud; wrongfully denied plaintiff disability retirement; lacked work rules and a contract. (First Am. Compl. (ECF No. 4) at 4-7.¹)

On February 27, 2019, defendant United Airlines Inc. filed a motion to dismiss the first amended complaint. (ECF No. 9.) Plaintiff filed a response to the motion to dismiss on March 25, 2019 (ECF No. 16), and an opposition on April 12, 2019. (ECF No. 17.) Defendant filed a reply on April 17, 2019 (ECF No. 18), and plaintiff filed a sur-reply on April 25, 2019. (ECF No. 19.)²

STANDARD

I. Legal Standards Applicable to Motions to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6)

The purpose of a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) is to test the legal sufficiency of the complaint. N. Star Int'l v. 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 plaintiff is required to allege "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). "A claim has facial plausibility 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).

In determining whether a complaint states a claim on which relief may be granted, the court accepts as true the allegations in the complaint and construes the allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984); Love v.United States, 915 F.2d 1242, 1245 (9th Cir. 1989). In general, pro se complaints are held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972). However, the court need not assume the truth of legal conclusions cast in the form of factual allegations. United States ex rel. Chunie v. Ringrose, 788 F.2d 638, 643 n.2 (9th Cir. 1986). While Rule 8(a) does not require detailed factual allegations, "it demands more than an unadorned, the defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. A pleading is insufficient if it offers mere "labels and conclusions" or "a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555; see also Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676 ("Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice."). Moreover, it is inappropriate to assume that the plaintiff "can prove facts which it has not alleged or that the defendants have violated the . . . laws in ways that have not been alleged." Associated Gen. Contractors of Cal., Inc. v. Cal. State Council of Carpenters, 459 U.S. 519, 526 (1983).

In ruling on a motion to dismiss brought pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), the court is permitted to consider material which is properly submitted as part of the complaint, documents that are not physically attached to the complaint if their authenticity is not contested and the plaintiff's complaint necessarily relies on them, and matters of public record. Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 688-89 (9th Cir. 2001).

ANALYSIS

I. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss

Defendant seeks dismissal of the first amended complaint because "as the prior complaint . . . [it is] bereft of legally actionable claims," "it seeks to relitigate claims that were . . . asserted by plaintiff in his three previous, unsuccessful cases, "and "is barred by the applicable statute of limitations." (Def.'s MTD (ECF No. 9-1) at 6.) Review of the first amended complaint finds that defendant's arguments are well taken.

A. Failure to State a Claim

Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Although the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure adopt a flexible pleading policy, a complaint must give the defendantfair notice of the plaintiff's claims and must allege facts that state the elements of each claim plainly and succinctly. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2); Jones v. Community Redev. Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984). "A pleading that offers 'labels and conclusions' or 'a formulaic recitation of the elements of cause of action will not do.' Nor does a complaint suffice if it tenders 'naked assertions' devoid of 'further factual enhancements.'" Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.662, 678 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 557). A plaintiff must allege with at least some degree of particularity overt acts which the defendants engaged in that support the plaintiff's claims. Jones, 733 F.2d at 649.

Plaintiff claims to have brought the instant case pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 201 to 209 ("FLSA"), but as in his initial complaint, plaintiff fails to explain how defendant violated FLSA. (Fist Am. Compl. (ECF No. 4) at 4.) Plaintiff also fails to clarify what specific provision or provisions of the FLSA plaintiff is alleging defendant violated, what action of the defendant constituted a violation, and when that violation occurred. See generally Landers v. Quality Communications, Inc., 771 F.3d 638, 644 (9th Cir. 2014) ("conclusory allegations that merely recite the statutory language are" not sufficient). For the purposes of Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, plaintiff has failed to state a claim for relief.

B. Statute of Limitations

Defendant argues that the instant action is time-barred because Plaintiff has failed to properly commence it within FLSA's statute of limitations. (Def.'s MTD (ECF No 9-1) at 9.) It appears that plaintiff is alleging that the FLSA violation occurred on August 16, 2008. (Am. Compl. (ECF No. 4) at 5 & 7.) However, the statute of limitations for FLSA claims is three years for willful violations or two years in all other instances. See 29 U.S.C. § 255(a); Flores v. City of San Gabriel, 824 F.3d 890, 895 (9th Cir. 2016).

While it appears that plaintiff is accusing defendant of acting intentionally, plaintiff's cause of action has been accruing for more than three years prior to the time the initial complaint was filed. Since the initial complaint was filed on August 29, 2018, all claims prior to August 29, 2015, would be barred by the statute of limitations. Thus, even if the amended complaint had properly alleged a FLSA claim, the statute of limitations for such a claim has long since run.

C. The Doctrine of Res Judicata

The doctrine of res judicata, or claim preclusion, "bars repetitious suits involving the same cause of action once a court of competent jurisdiction has entered a final judgment on the merits." United Sates v. Tohono O' Odham Nation, 563 U.S. 307, 315 (2011) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Under the Full Faith and Credit Statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1738, a federal court must accord a state judgment the same preclusive effect as would be given that judgment under the law of the state in which the judgment was entered.

To determine whether a state court decision is preclusive, federal courts must refer to the preclusion rules of the relevant state. Miofsky v. Superior Court of California, 703 F.2d 332, 336 (9th Cir. 1983). Under California law, res judicata applies where the party to be affected, or some other with whom he is in privity, has litigated, or had an opportunity to litigate the same matter in a former action in a court of competent jurisdiction, and should not be permitted to litigate it again to the harassment and vexation of his opponent. Citizens for Open Access to Sand & Tide, Inc. v. Seadrift Ass'n, 60 Cal. App. 4th 1053, 1065 (1998) (quotation marks omitted).

The elements necessary to establish res judicata are: "(1) the decision in the prior proceeding is final and on the merits; (2) the present proceeding is on the same cause of action as the prior proceeding; and (3) the parties in the present proceeding or parties in privity with them were parties to the prior proceeding." Villacres v. ABM Indus., Inc., 189 Cal. App. 4th 562, 577 (2010).

(1) The Prior Proceedings Resulted in Judgements on the Merits

In order to be claim preclusive, a prior decision must have been on the merits. Boeken v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., 48 Cal. 4th 788, 797 (2010) (under California law, dismissal with prejudice is the equivalent of a final judgment on the merits and bars the entire cause of action). Here, plaintiff filed a first state court action litigating the claims at issue here, and that action was dismissed without leave to amend on a demurrer for failure to "state any facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action[.]" (Def.'s RJN (ECF No. 10-5) at 3.)

//// Plaintiff then filed a second state court action action that was dismissed without leave to amend on a res judicata based d...