IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
March 31, 2009
JOHN DOE, ET AL., ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, PLAINTIFFS,
D.M. CAMP & SONS, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Anthony W. Ishii Chief United States District Judge
ORDER RE: MOTION TO DISMISS
Defendant El Rancho Farms is a commercial table grape grower based in Kern County. Plaintiffs Margarita Rosales and Angelica Rosales are former employees of Defendant. The operative complaint is the third amended complaint, ("TAC"). Doc. 173. The TAC alleges Defendant failed to properly pay wages by forcing employees to work off the clock, forcing employees to purchase tools out of pocket, failing to pay minimum required wages, failing to provide meal and rest periods, failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements, and failing to maintain time records. Plaintiffs' claims are divided into nine causes of action: (1) violations of the federal Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Workers Protection Act, 29 U.S.C. §1801 et seq. ("AWPA") through misinformation concerning the terms and conditions of employment, noncompliance with the terms of the working arrangement, failure to pay wages when due, and failing to provide accurate itemized written statements; (2) failure to pay wages; (3) failure to pay reporting time wages; (4) failure to provide required meal and rest periods as required by the Industrial Welfare Commission Work Order 14 ("IWC Order 14-2001") and Cal. Labor Code §226.7; (5) failure to pay wages in a timely manner at the termination of employment; (6) failure to provide itemized employee wage statements; (7) recovery for these violations under the Private Attorney General Act, Cal. Labor Code §2699 et seq. ("PAGA"); (8) breach of contract; and (9) violation of the Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §17200 et seq. ("UCL") through the above described activities.
Defendant has made a motion to dismiss and proceeds by "incorporat[ing] herein the Memoranda filed by defendants Giumarra Vineyards and defendant D.M. Camp & Sons in support of their separate Motions to Dismiss the Third Amended Complaint filed by the plaintiffs in the actions entitled Rafael Munos, et al. v. Giumarra Vineyards, etc, et al. and Fernando Rodrigues, et al. v. D.M. Camp & Sons, et al., which utilize the same case number as the instant action pursuant to this Court's March 31, 2008 Orders." Doc. 192, Defendant's Brief, at 1:25-2:1. Defendant then provides a bare summary of points without argumentation. Plaintiffs similarly refer the court to their oppositions filed in the two other cases. Doc. 205, Opposition, at 1:7-8. The court thus refers the parties to the Orders resolving the motions to dismiss brought by Giumarra Vineyards and D.M. Camp & Sons.
It is ORDERED:
Defendant's motion is DENIED.
Plaintiffs are ordered to refile their suit in a new case number within twenty (20) days to effectuate the court's March 31, 2008 Order granting severance. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case at the end of that time.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.