Ogogo v. JayKay, Inc.

CHARI OGOGO, Plaintiff, v. JAYKAY, INC., a California corporation, MANAGEMENT SOLUTION, LLC,a California Limited Liability Company, E3 HR, Inc.,a New Jersey Corporation, and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants.

No. 2:18-cv-03203-JAM-DB

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

May 28, 2019

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS

Plaintiff Chari Ogogo brings this wage and hour class action and Private Attorney General Act ("PAGA") action against JayKay Medical Staffing Inc., Management Solution LLC, and E3 HR Inc., ("Defendants"). Ogogo sues on behalf of contractors providing medical services in California state prisons for unpaid wages, missed meal periods, missed rest breaks, inaccurate wage statements, and pay due upon separation. First Am. Compl. ("FAC"), ECF No. 10. Ogogo proposed classes for each alleged violation.

Defendants filed Motions to Dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). ECF Nos. 9 ("JayKay Mot."), 13 ("E3 HR Mot."), 15 ("Management Mot."). Management Solution filed a Motion to Strike Class and PAGA Allegations (ECF No. 17), and two requests for judicial notice (ECF Nos. 16, 18). E3 HR also filed a Request for Judicial Notice. ECF No. 14. JayKay joined the motions to dismiss and motion to strike. ECF No. 20. Ogogo opposed the motions to dismiss (ECF Nos. 24-27), the motion to strike (ECF No. 28), the request for judicial notice (ECF No. 29), and notice of joinder (ECF No. 30). Defendants replied in support of the motion to dismiss (ECF Nos. 32 and 33) and the motion to strike (ECF No. 34). The Court DISMISSES Plaintiff's claims against Management Solutions and E3 HR WITHOUT PREJUDICE because the complaint does not sufficiently allege that they employed Ogogo. Dismissing E3 HR deprives the Court of subject matter jurisdiction under CAFA. The Court, therefore, cannot decide any further issues. Absent amendment, the Court will REMAND the case to state court under § 1447(c).¹

I. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Chari Ogogo was a clinical laboratory scientist contractor at Solano State Prison. FAC ¶ 8. She alleges she was jointly employed by Defendants Management Solution, JayKay, and E3 HR. Management Solution and JayKay are vendor management companies in healthcare that contract with CDCR to place temporary medical professionals. E3 HR is a payroll processing company. Id. at¶ 19; Management Mot. 8, 24:28. Ogogo alleges she and the proposed classes were "employed by JayKay, [] providing time cards to Management Solution, [and] issued wage statements by E3 HR, Inc." FAC ¶ 21.

Ogogo alleges Defendants "carried out a joint scheme, business plan or policy" requiring class members "to follow practices and policies impacting [employees'] day to day activities," and that these "interrelated business structures and functions" "work[ed] as a subterfuge" to prevent aggrieved employees "from bringing claims against their joint employers." Id. at ¶¶ 16-17. Ogogo alleges JayKay and Management Solution were authorized to "fire, demote, and discipline." Id. at ¶ 17.

To support her claims, Ogogo cites: (1) the employment agreement she signed with JayKay to work as an at-will Clinical Lab Scientist at Pleasant Valley State Prison,² (2) an onboarding email with reporting instructions for Ogogo's start date at Solano State Prison that Management Solution sent to JayKay with the subject "SOL 1^st day start instructions CLS Chari Ogogo" (Ex. B "onboarding email"), and (3) her wage statement, bearing each Defendant's company name. Id. at Ex. A-B.

A. Minimum Wage and Unpaid Overtime Claims

Ogogo alleges Defendants failed to pay employees the minimum wage for all hours worked and owed unpaid overtime since employees were required to attend an unpaid orientation. Id. at ¶ 26. Plaintiff quotes the employment agreement:

The Client Facility may require employee to attend a mandatory training and/or orientation . . . to familiarize him/her with the Facility rules, regulations and safety protocols . . . orientation and/or training for EMPLOYEES is considered as UNPAID since most clients do not pay for orientation and/or training.

Id. at ¶ 26.

Ogogo also alleges the mandatory bag checks upon entry and exit were conducted "on staff time," but unpaid. Id. at ¶ 27. Ogogo cites the onboarding email for support:

Staff will have to open their bags for inspection every time they enter and exit the institution. If there is a questionable item, the front entrance office will ask the staff member to return to their car to dispose of the item. If Staff members clothing is questionable the front entrance officer may instruct staff to return home to change their clothing. This will be done on staff time.

Ex. B, ECF No. 10

B. Meal Periods Claims

Ogogo further alleges Defendants violated Labor Code § 512 by failing to advise employees of their right to receive thirty-minute uninterrupted meal periods within the first five hours of a shift. Id. at ¶ 33. Ogogo alleges employees were told they could not take a meal period or leave their station except to use the bathroom, and then, employees were "required to take their meal periods on premises," causing Ogogo and employees to "effectively work through their meal periods." Id. at ¶¶ 33-34. She also alleges Defendants never asked employees to sign a legally compliant on-duty meal period form. Id. And, even if employees were able to leave, meal periods would be cut short by bag checks. Id.

///

C. Off-Duty Rest Period Claims

Ogogo further alleges Defendants "actively prevented" Plaintiff from taking off-duty rest periods because employees were "prohibited from leaving the workspace during their shifts." Id. at ¶¶ 41-42. Again, Ogogo alleges that mandatory bag checks take 20 minutes of unpaid time, effectively denying any off-duty rest period. Id. at ¶ 42.

D. Derivative Claims

Plaintiff's remaining claims are derivative of the wage and hour violations. These include: failure to pay wages owed on a timely basis within seven days on the close of payroll period for a regular and consistent basis (¶¶ 44-46), non-compliant wage statements (¶¶ 47-55), failure to pay all wages owed upon termination, (¶¶ 56-57), UCL (¶¶ 105-115), and PAGA and other penalties (¶¶ 116-124).

Ogogo initially sued in San Joaquin Superior Court (Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2018-14095). See Notice of Removal, Ex. A, ECF No. 1. Management Solution removed the case to federal court on December 13, 2018 as a diversity action under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA), Pub. L. No. 109-2, 119 Stat. 4. Id. at 1-15; 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d).

On January 11, 2019, Ogogo filed the operative First Amended Complaint, bringing eight claims: (1) failure to pay minimum wages (§§ 1194, 1194.2, 1197, 1197.1); (2) failure to provide off-duty meal periods and/or pay meal period premiums (§§ 226.7, 512, and IWC Wage Order 4-2001); (3) failure to provide off-duty rest breaks and/or pay missed rest break premiums (§ 226.7, IWC Wage Order 4-2001); (4) failure to provide complete and accuratewage statements (§§ 226(a) (1,2,5,9); 226.3)); (5) failure to identify the name of the employer on the wage statements (§§ 226(a)(8) and 226.3); (6) failure to pay all wages due to former employees upon termination "waiting time penalties" (§§ 201-203); (7) unfair business practices (§§ 17200-17204); and (8) PAGA relief and other penalties (§§ 2699 and 558).

II. OPINION

A. Judicial Notice

Management Solution requests judicial notice of Plaintiff's amended PAGA notice (Ex. A); the 2018 CDCR operations manual title page, table of contents, table of acronyms, and page 1 of chapter 1 (Ex. B); Section 33020.4 (Ex. C); Section 50250.15 (Ex. D); a copy of an August 12, 2014 memorandum with the subject line "Proper Workplace Attire," disseminated to all staff from Solano State Prison Warden E. Arnold and CEO Lori W. Anderson; (Ex. E), and a copy of a map of CDCR Institutions, (Ex. F). Management Mot., ECF Nos. 16, 18.

E3 HR requests judicial notice of Plaintiff's FAC (Ex. A); CDCR webpages relating to the Solano and Pleasant Valley State Prisons (Ex. B); declaration of Amy Deak submitted in support of Management Solution's Notice of Removal (Ex. C); Plaintiff's PAGA notice and exhibits (Ex. D); and Plaintiff's original complaint (Ex. E). E3 HR Mot., ECF No. 14.

The Court may consider matters subject to judicial notice and documents incorporated by reference in the complaint. U.S. v. Ritchie, 342 F.3d 903, 908 (9th Cir. 2003). Since Plaintiff referenced the PAGA notice and exhibits in her complaint, the Court will take notice of these documents.

Additionally, the Court may take notice of public records and government documents available from reliable sources on the internet, such as websites run by governmental agencies and the facts included therein. See Kater v. Churchill Downs Inc., 886 F.3d 784, 788 n.3 (9th Cir. 2018). Therefore, the Court will consider the CDCR webpages, manual, and memorandum as government documents and the original complaint and Deak declaration as public records on the docket. Requests for judicial notice, ECF Nos. 14, 16, 18 are GRANTED.

B. Motion to Dismiss

1. Legal Standard

Dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) "can be based on the lack of a cognizable legal theory or the absence of sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable legal theory." See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). Rule 8 "requires only 'a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.'" Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2)). While detailed factual allegations are not required at the pleading stage, a complaint must contain "more than an unadorned, the defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). The claim to relief must be plausible on its face. Id. A pleading is insufficient if it offers mere "labels and conclusions" or "a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action"— the right to relief...