The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hayes, Judge:
The matter before the Court is the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (ECF No. 12) filed by Defendant.
On April 2, 2010, Plaintiff initiated this action by filing a Complaint in the Superior Court of California for the County of San Diego. On May 6, 2010, Defendant removed the case to this Court. (ECF No. 1). On September 13, 2010, Defendant filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. (ECF No. 12). Defendant seeks judgment on the pleadings as to all claims in the Complaint on the grounds that Plaintiff has settled and releases the claims. On October 7, 2010, Plaintiff filed an Opposition. (ECF No. 14). Plaintiff contends that his claims are not barred by the release he entered into to settle his workers' compensation claim. On October 18, 2010, Defendant filed a Reply. (ECF No. 15).
ALLEGATIONS OF THE COMPLAINT
Plaintiff asserts eleven claims in the Complaint including: (1) wrongful discharge in violation of public policy; (2) wrongful termination and discrimination in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act ("FEHA") disability discrimination; (3) harassment and retaliation in violation of FEHA; (4) failure to take steps reasonably necessary to prevent harassment and discrimination in violation of FEHA; (5) failure to make reasonable accommodations and failure to engage in the interactive process in violation of FEHA; (6) intentional infliction of emotional distress; (7) failure to provide accurate wage statements; (8) failure to pay overtime compensations; (9) failure to provide proper meal and rest periods; (10) waiting time penalties pursuant to California Labor Code § 203; and (11) unfair business practices in violation of California Business and Processions Code §§ 17200, and 17200, et seq. (ECF No. 1 at 2).
Plaintiff John Skinner was employed by Defendant American Medical Response Ambulance Service, Inc. from July 27, 2008 through November 10, 2008 as a delivery driver. Id. at 16 ¶¶ 10-11. Skinner "worked more than 40 hours per week and often missed his meal and rest periods due to the nature of the business." Id. at ¶ 12. On November 4, 2008, Skinner hurt his lower back on the job. Id. at ¶ 16. On November 5, 2008, Skinner reported his injury to his supervisor and requested a dolly to "perform the essential functions of [his] job." Id. at ¶¶ 17-18, 23. Skinner asked management about the process for filing a workers' compensation claim and on November 10, 2008, he received an email from a human resources employee stating that he was not eligible for workers' compensation benefits. Id. at ¶¶ 26-27, 29. On November 11, 2008, Skinner sent an email to his supervisor stating that he would not be coming into work due to his back injury and would be seeing his doctor. Id. at ¶ 32. On November 13, 2008, Skinner's employment was terminated. Id. at ¶ 35. "When Plaintiff was terminated, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff all of Plaintiff's final wages." Id. at ¶ 47.
Plaintiff attached his "Complaint of Discrimination" dated April 3, 2009 to the Complaint in this case. Id. at 38. Plaintiff states in the Complaint of Discrimination: "I reported a work related injury on [November 5, 2008]. I asked for accommodations following my injury. I was terminated on [November 12, 2008]." Id.
I. Request for Judicial Notice
Defendant requests judicial notice of the following: (1) Plaintiff's State of California Department of Industrial Relations Division of Workers' Compensation Employee's Claim for Worker's Compensation Benefits; (2) State of California Division of Workers' Compensation Workers' Compensation Appeals Board Compromise and Release, Case Number ADJ66551471; and (3) December 29, 2009 Order Approving Compromise and Release for Case Number ADJ66551471.
Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to the request for judicial notice. Additionally, Plaintiff states in his Complaint, "Following his termination Skinner did, indeed, file a workers' compensation claim, which was processed and ultimately accepted ...." (ECF No. 1 at 18). Plaintiff also states in his Opposition: "It is true that Plaintiff Skinner signed a standard workers' compensation Compromise and Release agreement." (ECF No. 14 at 4).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(d) provides that if "matters outside the pleadings are presented to and not excluded by the court, the motion must be treated as one for summary judgment under Rule 56." Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(d); see also Hal Roach Studios, Inc., 896 F.2d at 1550. However, "a court may properly look beyond the complaint to matters of public record and doing so does not convert a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to one for summary judgment." Mack v. South Bay Beer Distributors, Inc., 798 F.2d 1279, 1282 (9th Cir. 1986) (abrogated on other grounds by Astoria Federal Sav. and Loan Ass'n v. Solimino, 501 U.S. 104, 107 (1991)). The court may take judicial notice of records and reports of administrative bodies without converting motion into one for summary judgment. United States. v. 14.02 Acres of Land More or Less in Fresno County, 547 F.3d 943, 955 (9th Cir. 2008); see also Fed. R. Evid. 201; Doctors Medical Center of Modesto v. Global Excel Management, Inc., Case No. 1:08-cv-01231 OWW DLB, 2009 WL 2500546, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 14, 2009).
Plaintiff's claim for workers' compensation benefits; the Compromise and Release, Case Number ADJ66551471; and (3) the December 29, 2009 Order approving the Compromise and Release attached to the request for judicial notice are records of an administrative body and Plaintiff does not dispute ...