Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

McBain v. Behr Paint Corp.

United States District Court, N.D. California

April 3, 2017

RYAN MCBAIN, Plaintiff,
v.
BEHR PAINT CORPORATION, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER RE: MOTION TO DISMISS RE: DKT. NO. 14

          MARIA-ELENA JAMES United States Magistrate Judge

         INTRODUCTION

         Defendants 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 reasons.

         BACKGROUND

         Plaintiff 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.

         LEGAL STANDARDS

         A. Rule 8

         Rule 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).

         B. Rule 12(b)(1)

         Federal 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).

         Federal 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”).

         C. Rule 12(b)(6)

         A court 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.

         In 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 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.