United States District Court, N.D. California
ORDER RE: MOTION TO DISMISS RE: DKT. NO. 14
MARIA-ELENA JAMES United States Magistrate Judge
Behr Paint Corporation (“Behr Paint”), Behr
Process Corporation (“Behr Process”), and Masco
Corporation (“Masco”) (collectively,
“Defendants”) filed a Motion to Dismiss pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”)
12(b)(1) and (6). Mot., Dkt. No. 14. Plaintiff Ryan McBain
(“Plaintiff) filed an Opposition (Dkt. No. 20) and
Defendants filed a Reply (Dkt. No. 22). The Court heard oral
argument on March 23, 2017. Having considered the
parties' positions, the relevant legal authority, and the
record in this case, the Court GRANTS IN
PART Defendants' Motion for the following
alleges he has been employed by “Behr” as a field
representative to stock and maintain Behr products in
specific Home Depot stores in California and to answer
questions about Behr products. Compl. ¶¶ 1, 7, 20,
Dkt. No. 1. Plaintiff alleges Defendants regularly require
representatives (or “Reps”) to work overtime
hours both inside Home Depot stores and outside of stores.
Id. ¶¶ 20-33. He alleges Defendants
misclassified him and other Reps as exempt from overtime
requirements under the Fair Labor Standards Act
(“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq., and the
California Labor Code. Id. ¶¶ 1-7. He
brings this FLSA Collective action on behalf of all current
and former Reps in California who were misclassified as
exempt, are entitled to unpaid wages for which they did not
receive overtime compensation, and are entitled to liquidated
damages pursuant to the FLSA. Id. ¶ 4. He also
asserts claims under the California Labor Code and
California's Unfair Competition Law. Id.
¶¶ 5-6. Plaintiff alleges each Defendant is an
employer within the meaning of the FLSA and California law.
Id. ¶¶ 8-9, 76-77, 89-90.
8(a) requires that a complaint contain a “short and
plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is
entitled to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). A complaint
must therefore provide a defendant with “fair
notice” of the claims against it and the grounds for
relief. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544,
555 (2007) (internal quotations and citation omitted).
district courts are courts of limited jurisdiction;
“[t]hey possess only that power authorized by
Constitution and statute, which is not to be expanded by
judicial decree.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins.
Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994) (citation omitted).
Accordingly, “[i]t is to be presumed that a cause lies
outside this limited jurisdiction, and the burden of
establishing the contrary rests upon the party asserting
jurisdiction.” Id; Chandler v. State Farm Mut.
Auto. Ins. Co., 598 F.3d 1115, 1122 (9th Cir. 2010).
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) authorizes a party to move
to dismiss a lawsuit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
A jurisdictional challenge may be facial or factual. Safe
Air for Everyone v. Meyer, 373 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir.
2004). Where the attack is facial, the court determines
whether the allegations contained in the complaint are
sufficient on their face to invoke federal jurisdiction,
accepting all material allegations in the complaint as true
and construing them in favor of the party asserting
jurisdiction. Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 501
(1975). Where the attack is factual, however, “the
court need not presume the truthfulness of the plaintiffs
allegations.” Safe Air for Everyone, 373 F.3d
at 1039. In resolving a factual dispute as to the existence
of subject matter jurisdiction, a court may review extrinsic
evidence beyond the complaint without converting a motion to
dismiss into one for summary judgment. Id; McCarthy v.
United States, 850 F.2d 558, 560 (9th Cir. 1988)
(holding that a court “may review any evidence, such as
affidavits and testimony, to resolve factual disputes
concerning the existence of jurisdiction”).
may dismiss a complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) when it does not
contain enough facts to state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570.
“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). “The plausibility standard is not
akin to a ‘probability requirement, ' but it asks
for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted
unlawfully.” Id. (quoting Twombly,
550 U.S. at 557). “While a complaint attacked by a Rule
12(b)(6) motion to dismiss does not need detailed factual
allegations, a plaintiffs obligation to provide the
‘grounds' of his ‘entitle[ment] to relief
requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic
recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.
Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief
above the speculative level.” Twombly, 550
U.S. at 555 (internal citations and parentheticals omitted);
see also Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1216 (9th
Cir. 2011) (“[Allegations in a complaint or
counterclaim may not simply recite the elements of a cause of
action, but must contain sufficient allegations of underlying
facts to give fair notice and to enable the opposing party to
defend itself effectively.”). The court must be able to
“draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is
liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556
U.S. at 663.
considering a motion to dismiss, a court must accept all of
the plaintiffs allegations as true and construe them in the
light most favorable to the plaintiff. Id. at 550;
Erickson v. Pardus,551 U.S. 89, 93-94 (2007);
Vasquez v. Los Angeles Cty.,487 F.3d 1246, 1249
(9th Cir. 2007). In addition, courts may consider documents
attached to the ...