Ruelas v. Cnty. of Alameda
| Decision Date | 09 February 2021 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 19-cv-07637-JST |
| Citation | 519 F.Supp.3d 636 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of California |
| Parties | Armida RUELAS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, et al., Defendants. |
Anne Butterfield Weills, EmilyRose Naomi Johns, Daniel Mark Siegel, Siegel, Yee, Brunner & Mehta, Oakland, CA, for Plaintiffs Armida Ruelas, De'Andre Eugene Cox, Bert Davis, Katrish Jones, Joseph Mebrahtu, Dahryl Reynolds, Monica Mason, Luis Nunez-Romero.
EmilyRose Naomi Johns, Siegel, Yee, Brunner & Mehta, Oakland, CA, for Plaintiff Scott Abbey.
Joel Perry Glaser, Skane Wilcox LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants County of Alameda, Sheriff Gregory J. Ahern.
Cortlin Hall Lannin, Isaac Daniel Chaput, Covington & Burling LLP, San Francisco, CA, Eric C. Bosset, Thomas Ian Plotkin, Pro Hac Vice, Covington & Burling LLP, Washington, DC, for Defendant Aramark Correctional Services, LLC.
JON S. TIGAR, United States District Judge Before the Court are motions to dismiss the first amended complaint filed by Defendants Alameda County and Sheriff Gregory J. Ahern ("County Defendants"), ECF No. 51, and Defendant Aramark Correctional Services, LLC ("Aramark"), ECF No. 52. The Court will deny the motions in part and grant them in part.
Plaintiffs Armida Ruelas, De'Andre Eugene Cox, Bert Davis, Katrish Jones, Joseph Mebrahtu, Dahryl Reynolds, Monica Mason, Luis Nunez-Romero, and Scott Abbey are or were "pre-trial detainees, detainees facing deportation, [and] federal detainees" confined in Alameda County's Santa Rita Jail. First Amended Complaint ("FAC"), ECF No. 48 ¶ 1. Plaintiffs are or were performing "industrial food preparation services and cleaning" for Aramark pursuant to a contract between Aramark and Alameda County. Id. "Aramark is a private, for-profit company that sells food prepared by prisoners to third parties" outside of Alameda County. Id. This contract was made possible by California Proposition 139, which allows private companies to hire county jail inmates. Id. ¶ 18. Alameda County contracted with Aramark "as early as July 1, 2015." Id. ¶ 22.
Plaintiffs allege that Aramark's contract with Alameda County allows Aramark "to employ persons imprisoned in Santa Rita Jail without compensating them." Id. Under the contract, "[p]risoners prepare and package food" in Santa Rita's kitchen "and clean and sanitize the kitchen" after preparation has finished. Id. ¶ 23. Plaintiffs allege that "Aramark employees manage the kitchen operation and observe the Sheriff's deputies’ supervision of the prisoner-employees." Id. Employees of Aramark "supervise the quality and amount of work that prisoners accomplish" and "supervise prisoner-employee conduct and report misconduct to the deputies for discipline." Id. ¶ 24. Further, Aramark "establishes quotas for prisoners that dictate how much work prisoners must complete before their shift ends" and "determines from its quotas how many prisoner-employees are required to work and how many shifts are required." Id. ¶ 25.
Plaintiffs allege that County Defendants may "remove [prisoner-employees’] eligibility to work in the jail and subject them to disciplinary action" if Sheriff's deputies are "displeased with the quality or quantity of the work performed or the conduct of a prisoner-employee." Id. ¶ 26. Plaintiffs allege that "if Aramark is displeased with a prisoner-employee, it can tell the County that the prisoner-employee may not return to work for Aramark." Id. County Defendants and Aramark "arranged to divide the work day so that male prisoners are assigned to longer, daytime shifts, and female prisoners are assigned to shorter, nighttime shifts." Id. ¶ 27. Plaintiffs allege County Defendants "determine which prisoners are eligible to work and place them in worker housing units," and Aramark "assigns prisoner-employees to their specific tasks." Id. ¶ 28. Plaintiffs allege that "Sheriff's deputies threaten plaintiffs and other prisoner-employees of Aramark that if they refuse to work, they will receive lengthier jail sentences or be sent to solitary confinement, where they would be confined to a small cell for 22 to 24 hours a day." Id. ¶ 31. The deputies "also threaten to terminate prisoners’ employment if they need to take a sick day or are injured." Id. Plaintiffs allege that such threats are sometimes made "in the presence of Aramark employees," id. ¶ 32, and that Aramark employees threaten "to report [prisoner-employees] to the Sheriff's deputies for punishment if they attempt to leave work early due to illness or injury," id. ¶ 33.
In late October 2019, male prisoner workers, including those working for Aramark, staged a worker strike at Santa Rita "to advocate for improved conditions at the jail[.]" Id. ¶ 37. Plaintiffs allege that in response, Sheriff's deputies forced female prisoners, including Plaintiffs Ruelas and Mason, to cover the men's shifts "so that Aramark could meet their quotas[.]" Id. Deputies allegedly threatened these women by telling them they would "not be provided meals unless they worked." Id.
Plaintiffs filed the original complaint on November 20, 2019 on behalf of themselves, a class of individuals incarcerated in Santa Rita Jail who perform or performed services for Aramark, ECF No. 1, Complaint ¶ 41, and three subclasses: (1) a "Pretrial Detainee Subclass," represented by Ruelas, Davis, and Mason and comprising pretrial detainees who perform or performed services for Aramark while incarcerated at Santa Rita jail, id. ¶ 43; (2) the "Women Prisoner Subclass," represented by Ruelas, Jones, and Mason and comprising women who perform or performed services for Aramark while incarcerated at Santa Rita Jail, id. ¶ 44; and (3) the "Immigration Detainee Subclass," represented by Nunez-Romero and comprising all detainees awaiting immigration proceedings who perform or performed services for Aramark while incarcerated at Santa Rita Jail, id. ¶ 45. Plaintiffs brought ten claims, including claims under the Thirteenth Amendment, the Trafficking Victims Protection Act ("TVPA"), the Fourteenth Amendment, the California Labor Code, California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), and California's Bane Act. Id. ¶¶ 67-108.
County Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiffs’ complaint on December 13, 2019. ECF No. 13. This Court took County Defendants’ motion under submission without a hearing. ECF No. 36. Aramark moved to dismiss the complaint on January 17, 2020. ECF No. 23. The Court held a hearing on March 4, 2020. ECF No. 37.
On June 26, 2020, this Court granted in part and denied in part County Defendants and Aramark's motions to dismiss. ECF No. 46. The Court dismissed Plaintiffs’ (1) TVPA claim against Aramark; (2) Labor Code claim for failure to pay wages, but only as it pertained to convicted plaintiffs; (3) Labor Code claims against County Defendants for failure to pay minimum wage and overtime, but only as they pertained to convicted Plaintiffs; (4) Labor Code claims against Aramark for failure to pay minimum wage and overtime; (5) Equal Pay Act claim; (6) Bane Act claim, but only against Aramark; and (7) Plaintiffs Mebrahtu, Mason, and Nunez-Romero's Labor Code and Bane Act claims against County Defendants. Id. at 25. All dismissals were with leave to amend except for the Labor Code claim for failure to pay convicted Plaintiffs wages as well as Mebrahtu, Mason, and Nunez-Romero's claims. Id.
On July 10, 2020, Plaintiffs filed the FAC. ECF No. 48. Plaintiffs add a new plaintiff, Scott Abbey, id. ¶ 1, and reassert nine of the ten claims from the original complaint, see id. ¶ 74-110. Plaintiffs add Jones, Reynolds, Cox, Mebrahtu, and Abbey as representatives of the pretrial detainee subclass. Id. ¶ 51. Plaintiffs no longer bring claims under California's Equal Pay Act., cf. id. , or seek to represent convicted jail inmates, see id. ¶ 50.
On August 14, 2020, County Defendants and Aramark filed the instant motions to dismiss. ECF Nos. 51, 52. Plaintiffs opposed both motions and County Defendants and Aramark replied. ECF Nos. 53, 54, 56, 57. The Court held a hearing on October 21, 2020.
As Plaintiffs make claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 18 U.S.C. § 1589, this Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
A complaint must contain "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." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) ; Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007) (citation omitted). "To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’ " Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (quoting Twombly , 550 U.S. at 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955 ). "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." Id. "Dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) is appropriate only where the complaint lacks a cognizable legal theory or sufficient facts to support a cognizable legal theory." Mendiondo v. Centinela Hosp. Med. Ctr. , 521 F.3d 1097, 1104 (9th Cir. 2008). The Court must "accept all factual allegations in the complaint as true and construe the pleadings in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party." Knievel v. ESPN , 393 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir. 2005).
County Defendants argue that Plaintiffs fail to state any claims under the California Labor Code, the TVPA, or 42 U.S.C. § 1983. They additionally argue that Plaintiffs Mebrahtu, Mason, and Nunez-Romero's claims are...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Alsadi v. Intel Corp.
-
Ridley v. Gaffney
...confinement, if they refused. The plaintiffs brought numerous causes of action, including a claim under the Thirteenth Amendment. The Ruelas court ruled that plaintiffs who were to work before they were convicted - the same status as pretrial detainee that applies to Plaintiff - stated a cl......
-
Maslic v. ISM Vuzem D.o.o.
...element of a TVPRA claim by alleging that a defendant's employees witnessed coercive labor practices or observed indicia of coerced labor. In Ruelas, a court in this district considered a food vendor for a county jail could be held liable under the TVPRA for the jail's practice of forcing p......
-
Ridley v. Gaffney
...confinement, if they refused. The plaintiffs brought numerous causes of action, including a claim under the Thirteenth Amendment. The Ruelas court ruled that plaintiffs who were to work before they were convicted - the same status as pretrial detainee that applies to Plaintiff - stated a cl......