United States District Court, C.D. California
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 
D. WRIGHT, II UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
action arises from Defendant EmCare, Inc.'s alleged
misclassification of Plaintiff Cathy Clark as an exempt
salaried employee. (First Am. Compl. (“FAC”)
¶ 5, ECF No. 9.) Before the Court is EmCare's motion
to dismiss the First Amended Complaint under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (Mot. to Dismiss
(“MTD”), ECF No. 13.) For the reasons discussed
below, the Court GRANTS Defendant's motion with leave to
worked for EmCare as a “nurse scheduler, ” which
she alleges is a non-exempt position. (FAC ¶ 5.)
Plaintiff alleges that she was incorrectly classified as an
exempt salaried employee by EmCare. (Id.) Plaintiff
alleges that this incorrect classification resulted in EmCare
“violat[ing] numerous provisions of the California
Labor Code, including failure to pay overtime, failure to pay
minimum wage for all hours worked, failure to provide meal
and rest breaks . . . failure to furnish accurate and
itemized wage statements[, ]. . . . [and] fail[ure] to
compensate Plaintiff at the time of termination.”
(Id. ¶ 7.)
28, 2016, Plaintiff filed this action in the Santa Barbara
Superior Court. (Not. of Removal, Ex. 1, ECF No. 1-1.) EmCare
removed the case to federal court based on diversity
jurisdiction. (ECF No. 1.) EmCare subsequently moved to
dismiss Plaintiff's complaint for failure to state a
claim. (ECF No. 7.) Instead of opposing the motion, Plaintiff
filed a First Amended Complaint under Rule 15(a)(1)(B), thus
mooting EmCare's motion. (ECF Nos. 9, 11.)
Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint alleges five causes
of action: (1) failure to pay overtime wages in violation of
California Labor Code sections 510, 1194, and 1198; (2)
failure to provide meal and rest periods in violation of
California Labor Code sections 226.7 and 512; (3) failure to
furnish and keep accurate itemized wage statements and
payroll in violation of California Labor Code section 226;
(4) unfair competition in violation of California Business
and Professions Code section 17200 et seq.; and (5) failure
to pay compensation at the time of termination in violation
of California Labor Code sections 201 and 203. (ECF No. 9.)
also moved to dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint
under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing that Plaintiff failed to
sufficiently plead each of her five causes of action. (ECF
No. 13.) Plaintiff filed a timely opposition, and EmCare
filed a timely reply. (ECF Nos. 14, 15.) That motion is now
before the Court for review.
may dismiss a complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) for
“lack of a cognizable legal theory or . . .
[in]sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable legal
theory.” Balistreri v. Pacifica Police
Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990) (citing
Robertson v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 749 F.2d
530, 533-34 (9th Cir. 1984)). To survive a motion to dismiss,
a complaint need only satisfy the minimal notice pleading
requirements of Rule 8(a)(2): “a short and plain
statement of the claim.” Porter v. Jones, 319
F.3d 483, 494 (9th Cir. 2003). The “[f]actual
allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above
the speculative level.” Bell Atl. Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). That is, the
“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 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl.
Corp., 550 U.S. at 570).
determination whether a complaint satisfies the plausibility
standard is a “context-specific task that requires the
reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common
sense.” Id. at 679 (citing Iqbal v.
Hasty, 490 F.3d 143, 157- 58 (2d Cir. 2007)). A court is
generally limited to the pleadings and must construe
“[a]ll factual allegations set forth in the complaint .
. . ‘as true and . . . in the light most
favorable'” to the plaintiff. Lee v. City of
Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 679 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoting
Epstein v. Wash. Energy Co., 83 F.3d 1136, 1140 (9th
Cir. 1996)). But a court need not blindly accept
“conclusory [allegations], unwarranted deductions of
fact, or unreasonable inferences.” Sprewell v.
Golden State Warriors, 266 F.3d 979, 988 (9th Cir.
Plaintiff's Misclassification as Non-Exempt
crux of Plaintiff's complaint is whether EmCare
misclassified Plaintiff, a nurse scheduler, as an exempt
salaried employee when she allegedly should have been
classified as non-exempt. (FAC ¶¶ 5, 7.) EmCare
argues that Plaintiff fails to allege sufficient facts to
support the conclusion that Emcare misclassified her. (MTD
6.) The Court disagrees. Under the California Labor Code,
“overtime exemption is an affirmative defense that must
be pled and proved by the employer.” Campbell v.
PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP, 642 F.3d 820, 825 (9th Cir.
2011) (citing Ramirez v. Yosemite Water Co., 20
Cal.4th 785 (1999)). A court cannot dismiss a complaint for
failure to state sufficient facts going to an affirmative
defense, because a plaintiff need not plead any
facts relating to an affirmative defense. See Albino v.
Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1169 (9th Cir. 2014); Scott v.
Kuhlmann, 746 F.2d 1377, 1378 (9th Cir. 1984). Thus,
EmCare's argument fails. However, notwithstanding this
finding, the Court now turns to Plaintiff's overtime
claim because “without facts supporting a reasonable
inference that [Plaintiff] . . . actually worked overtime . .
. [Plaintiff's] classification scheme is
irrelevant.” Schneider v. Space Systems/Loral,
Inc., 5:11-cv-02489-JF, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 104414, at
*8 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 15, 2011).
Plaintiff's First Claim: Violations of Labor Code
Sections 510, 1194, and 1198 for ...