United States District Court, E.D. California
HOPE KRAUSS, aka DEONTE KRAUSS, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiff,
WAL-MART, INC., a Delaware corporation; WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, INC.; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO
A. MENDEZ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Hope Krauss (“Plaintiff”) brings this putative
class action against her former employer, Defendants Walmart,
Inc. and Wal-Mart Associate, Inc. (collectively
“Walmart” or “Defendants”), for
violating California's labor laws. First Amended Compl.
(“FAC”), ECF No. 10. Defendants move to dismiss
Plaintiff's claims. Mot. to Dismiss (“Mot.”),
ECF No. 14.
reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS Defendants'
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Hope Krauss, a resident of California, worked as a full-time
associate in the produce and meat departments at
Defendants' Walmart Supercenter in West Sacramento,
California, from September 16, 2017 to October 22, 2018. FAC.
¶ 3. Plaintiff contends Walmart committed a litany of
California Labor Code violations-each one, primarily hinging
upon the allegation that Walmart did not pay her all that she
was owed. See generally FAC. Plaintiff claims
Walmart (1) required her to work off the clock and during
meal and rest breaks without compensation; (2) inaccurately
recorded the amount of time she worked; (3) refused to
compensate her for overtime hours; (4) failed to reimburse
her for necessary business-related expenses; (5) and
generally withheld funds she was entitled to upon her
termination. FAC ¶¶ 4-9. Moreover, she alleges
Walmart committed at least two of these violations-failure to
pay wages due upon termination and failure to provide
accurate wage statements-knowingly and intentionally. FAC
November 29, 2018, Plaintiff filed her Complaint in
Sacramento County Superior Court. Id. ¶ 1.
Walmart removed the case to federal court on May 10, 2019,
alleging jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act of
2005 (“CAFA”). Notice of Removal, ECF No. 1, at
2; 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d). Plaintiff later filed an amended
complaint, ECF No. 10, alleging eight violations of the
California Labor Code and a claim under California's
Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”). Id.
¶¶ 53-58; Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§
17200 et. seq. Plaintiff asserts each claim as an
“aggrieved employee” and on behalf of other
current and former Walmart employees under the California
Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (“PAGA”).
Id. ¶¶ 59-63.
moves to dismiss the First Amended Complaint, in its
entirety, for failure to state a claim. Mot. at 2. Plaintiff
opposes the motion. Opp'n, ECF No. 17.
Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires “a short and
plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is
entitled to relief.” Courts must dismiss a suit if the
plaintiff fails to “state a claim upon which relief can
be granted.” Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 12(b)(6). To defeat a
Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, a plaintiff must
“plead enough facts to state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). This plausibility
standard requires “factual content that allows the
court to draw a reasonable inference that the defendant is
liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). “At this stage,
the Court “must accept as true all of the allegations
contained in a complaint.” Id. But it need not
“accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual
when deciding a 12(b)(6) motion, the Court “may not
consider materials outside the complaint and
pleadings.” Holland v. TD Ameritrade, Inc.,
No. CIV S-10-2110-GEB, 1012 WL 592042, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Feb.
22, 2012). However, Federal Rule of Evidence 201 allows a
court to take judicial notice of “a fact that is not
subject to reasonable dispute because it (1) is generally
known within the trial court's territorial jurisdiction;
or (2) can be accurately and readily determined from sources
whose accuracy cannot be questioned.” Id.
ask this Court to take judicial notice of Plaintiff Hope
Krauss's wage statements for purpose of assessing
Plaintiff's Sixth Cause of Action. Mot. at 2. Defendants
contend that judicial notice is appropriate because these
wage statements form the basis of Plaintiff's inaccurate
wage statement claim. Id. Plaintiff has not opposed
this request. Rather, Plaintiff relies on this exhibit in her
Opposition. Opp'n at 10. Because Walmart's wage
statements “can be accurately and readily
determined” as an official wage statement and because
Plaintiff does not dispute this request, the Court will take
judicial notice of the existence of Walmart's wage
Failure to Provide Meal Period and Rest Breaks
employer must provide an employee with a thirty-minute meal
period for every five hours of work. See Cal. Lab. Code
§ 512(a). An employer cannot require an employee to work
during meal period or rest breaks. Id. at §
226.7(b). Moreover, an employer shall pay an additional hour
of pay ...