Torres v. Carescope, LLC
| Decision Date | 24 November 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. 2:15-cv-00198-TLN-CKD,2:15-cv-00198-TLN-CKD |
| Parties | ANTONETT TORRES, Plaintiff, v. CARESCOPE, LLC and FRANK SIM, an individual, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California |
This matter is before the Court pursuant to Defendants Carescope, LLC and Frank Sim's (collectively, "Defendants") Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings (ECF No. 38) and Plaintiff Antonett Torres's ("Plaintiff") Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (ECF No. 43). The parties both oppose each other's motions (ECF Nos. 45, 47) and both filed replies (ECF Nos. 50, 51). For the reasons set forth below, Defendants' Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part and Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a caregiver for residential care facilities in and around Sacramento. (ECF No. 4 at ¶ 10.) Plaintiff alleges Defendants systematically failed to pay her and similarly situated individuals in conformance with federal and state law. (ECF No. 4 at ¶ 5.) Plaintiff filed the instant action against Defendants on January 26, 2015 (ECF No. 1) and filed a First Amended Complaint on May 8, 2015 ("FAC") (ECF No. 4.). Plaintiff alleges the following eight claims: (1) failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") (29 U.S.C. § 207(a)); (2) failure to pay state minimum wages in violation of California Labor Code §§ 1194, 1194.2, 1197(a), and Wage Orders; (3) failure to pay state overtime and double time wages in violation of California Labor Code §§ 510, 1194, and Wage Orders; (4) failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements in violation of California Labor Code §§ 226, 226.6, and Wage Orders; (5) failure to pay all wages owed upon discharge in violation of California Labor Code §§ 201, 202, and 203; (6) failure to allow inspection or copying of employee records in violation of California Labor Code §§ 226(b), 1174, and 1175; (7) unfair competition in violation of the California Unfair Competition Law ("UCL") (California Business & Professions Code §§ 17200-17210); and (8) penalties pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA") (California Labor Code §§ 2698-2699.6). (See ECF No. 4.)
The Court issued a Minute Order on July 17, 2017, noting that Plaintiff is to proceed on her claims individually and not as a representative of a class. (ECF No. 36.) Defendants subsequently filed their Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings (ECF No. 38) on July 18, 2018, and Plaintiff filed her Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (ECF No. 43) on July 27, 2018.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ("Rule") 12(c) provides "[a]fter the pleadings are closed — but early enough not to delay trial — a party may move for judgment on the pleadings." Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c). The issue presented by a Rule 12(c) motion is substantially the same as that posed in a 12(b) motion — whether the factual allegations of the complaint, together with allreasonable inferences, state a plausible claim for relief. See Cafasso v. Gen. Dynamics C4 Sys., 637 F.3d 1047, 1054-1055 (9th Cir. 2011). "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) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 556 (2007)).
In analyzing a 12(c) motion, the district court "must accept all factual allegations in the complaint as true and construe them in the light most favorable to the non-moving party." Fleming v. Pickard, 581 F.3d 922, 925 (9th Cir. 2009). Nevertheless, a 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). "A judgment on the pleadings is properly granted when, taking all the allegations in the non-moving party's pleadings as true, the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Ventress v. Japan Airlines, 603 F.3d 676, 681 (9th Cir. 2010). Courts have the discretion to grant a Rule 12(c) motion with leave to amend, and to simply grant dismissal of the action instead of entry of judgment. See Lonberg v. City of Riverside, 300 F. Supp. 2d 942, 945 (C.D. Cal. 2004); Carmen v. S.F. Unified Sch. Dist., 982 F. Supp. 1396, 1401 (N.D. Cal. 1997).
Even though Rule 12(c) does not expressly authorize "partial judgments," courts within the Ninth Circuit have recognized application of Rule 12(c) to individual causes of action. Carmen v. San Francisco Unified Sch. Dist., 982 F. Supp. 1396, 1401 (N.D. Cal. 1997), aff'd, 237 F.3d 1026 (9th Cir. 2001). Thus, "[c]ourts have discretion to grant leave to amend in conjunction with 12(c) motions, and may dismiss causes of action rather than grant judgment." Id. However, courts have not entertained motions for partial judgment on the pleadings for only part of an individual claim or defense or "with respect to less than a full cause of action." Erhart v. Bofl Holding, Inc., 387 F. Supp. 3d 1046, 1062-63 (S.D. Cal. 2019) (quoting Wright & Miller); U.S. v. Real Property and Improvements Located at 2366 San Pablo Ave., Berkeley, CA, 2013 WL 6774082, at *1 (N.D. Cal. 2013).
/ / /
/ / /
Summary judgment is appropriate when the moving party demonstrates no genuine issue of any material fact exists and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 157 (1970). Under summary judgment practice, the moving party always bears the initial responsibility of informing the district court of the basis of its motion, and identifying those portions of "the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file together with affidavits, if any," which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). "[W]here the nonmoving party will bear the burden of proof at trial on a dispositive issue, a summary judgment motion may properly be made in reliance solely on the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file." Id. at 324 (internal quotation marks omitted). Indeed, summary judgment should be entered against a party who does not make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial.
If the moving party meets its initial responsibility, the burden then shifts to the opposing party to establish that a genuine issue as to any material fact does exist. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 585-87 (1986); First Nat'l Bank of Ariz. v. Cities Serv. Co., 391 U.S. 253, 288-89 (1968). In attempting to establish the existence of this factual dispute, the opposing party may not rely upon the denials of its pleadings, but is required to tender evidence of specific facts in the form of affidavits, and/or admissible discovery material, in support of its contention that the dispute exists. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). The opposing party must demonstrate that the fact in contention is material, i.e., a fact that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law, Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986), and that the dispute is genuine, i.e., the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party. Id. at 251-52.
In the endeavor to establish the existence of a factual dispute, the opposing party need not establish a material issue of fact conclusively in its favor. It is sufficient that "the claimed factual dispute be shown to require a jury or judge to resolve the parties' differing versions of the truth attrial." First Nat'l Bank, 391 U.S. at 288-89. Thus, the "purpose of summary judgment is to 'pierce the pleadings and to assess the proof in order to see whether there is a genuine need for trial.'" Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 587 ().
In resolving the summary judgment motion, the court examines the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with any applicable affidavits. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); SEC v. Seaboard Corp., 677 F.2d 1301, 1305-06 (9th Cir. 1982). The evidence of the opposing party is to be believed, and all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from the facts pleaded before the court must be drawn in favor of the opposing party. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255. Nevertheless, inferences are not drawn out of the air, and it is the opposing party's obligation to produce a factual predicate from which the inference may be drawn. Richards v. Nielsen Freight Lines, 602 F. Supp. 1224, 1244-45 (E.D. Cal. 1985), aff'd, 810 F.2d 898 (9th Cir. 1987). Finally, to demonstrate a genuine issue that necessitates a jury trial, the opposing party "must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts." Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 586. "Where the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party, there is no 'genuine issue for trial.'" Id. at 587.
Defendants move for partial judgment on the pleadings on Plaintiff's sixth, seventh, and eighth claims. (See ECF No. 38-1.) In conjunction with their motion, Defendants also submit requests for judicial notice. (See ECF Nos. 38-2, 50-1.) The Court will first evaluate the requests for judicial notice,...
To continue reading
Request your trial