The opinion of the court was delivered by: Breyer, District Judge.
Plaintiff filed a claim with this Court under the Fair Labor
Standards Act's ("FLSA") anti-retaliation provisions and the
California Labor Code. Now before the Court is defendants'
motion to dismiss. After carefully considering the papers filed
by the parties, and having had the benefit of oral argument, the
DENIES the motion to dismiss for the reasons set forth below.
As alleged, defendant Jutla recruited plaintiff, Macan Singh,
to come work for him in the United States. Jutla promised
plaintiff a place to live, tuition for education, and that
plaintiff would eventually become Jutla's business partner in
his corporation, C.D. & R's Oil Inc. Plaintiff, in the United
States illegally, worked for Jutla from approximately May 1995
to February 1998 and received no pay.
On January 6, 1999 plaintiff filed a wage claim against
defendants with the California Department of Industrial
Relations ("Labor Commissioner"), pursuant to section 98 of the
California Labor Code. Plaintiff sought unpaid wages and
overtime pay for work actually performed. After plaintiff filed
the claim, Jutla threatened to report him to the Immigration and
Naturalization Services ("INS") unless the claim was dropped.
Jutla also tried to force Singh to sign a written waiver of his
claims. Plaintiff, however, refused to submit to Jutla. The
Labor Commissioner awarded plaintiff $69, 633.73. Defendants
appealed from the Labor Commission's judgment by filing an
action in the Alameda Superior Court. On February 23, 2001, the
first day of the trial, the parties settled. In a written
agreement signed by both parties on May 3, 2001, Jutla agreed to
make scheduled payments to Singh.
The following day, May 4, 2001, the INS arrested and detained
plaintiff. Plaintiff has been in INS custody for fourteen
months. He alleges that defendant Jutla contacted the INS and
provided them with information of plaintiffs status in an act of
On March 7, 2002, plaintiff filed a complaint with this Court
against defendants for retaliation under the FLSA and the
California Labor Code, requesting declaratory, injunctive, and
A Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim
is viewed with disfavor and is rarely granted. See Gilligan v.
Jamco Dev. Corp., 108 F.3d 246, 249 (9th Cir. 1997). Under
Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint should not be dismissed unless a plaintiff
can prove "no set of facts in support of his claim that would
entitle him to relief." Parks Sch. of Bus., Inc. v. Symington,
51 F.3d 1480, 1484 (9th Cir. 1995). The court must take the
non-moving party's factual allegations as true and must construe
those allegations in the light most favorable to the non-moving
party. See id. The court must also draw all reasonable
inferences in favor of the non-moving party. See Usher v. City
of Los Angeles, 828 F.2d 556, 561 (9th Cir. 1987).
Defendants contend that under Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc.
v. NLRB, ___ U.S. ___, 122 S.Ct. 1275, 152 L.Ed.2d 271 (2002)
plaintiff has no cause of action. Before this argument can be
addressed, however, it is necessary to briefly discuss the
relevant law prior to Hoffman.
A. Undocumented aliens have a cause of action under the
National Labor Reform Act ("NLRA")