Case 1:21-cv-00382-JLT-EPG Document 33-1 Filed 09/02/22 Page 1 of 32
`
`
`
`Thomas E. Campagne, #065375
`Kari L. Ley, #142899
`Campagne & Campagne
`A Professional Corporation
`Airport Office Center
`1685 North Helm Avenue
`Fresno, California 93727
`Telephone: (559) 255-1637
`Facsimile: (559) 252-9617
`Email: cc@campagnelaw.com
`
`Attorneys for Bee Sweet Citrus, Inc.
`
`
`
`UNITES STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`FRESNO DIVISION
`
`
`RAFAEL MARQUEZ AMARO, JAVIER
`BARRERA, on behalf of themselves and
`others similarly situated,
`
`
`
`
`
`BEE SWEET CITRUS, INC.; and DOES 1
`through 10, inclusive,
`
`
`
`BEE SWEET CITRUS, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`RAFAEL MARQUEZ AMARO, JAVIER
`BARRERA,, on behalf of themselves and
`others similarly situated,
`
`
`
`
`))))))))))))))))))))))))))
`
`Case No. 1:21-CV-00382-JLT-EPG]
`[Assigned for All Purposes To Honorable
`U.S. District Court Judge: JLT.]
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
`AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
`DEFENDANT BEE SWEET’S MOTION
`FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
`PURSUANT TO FRCP 12(c) AND/OR IN
`THE ALTERNATIVE TOTAL OR
`PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`PURSUANT TO FRCP 56(a) FOR
`FAILURE TO MEET FEDERAL
`PLEADING STANDARDS
`
`Hearing Date: October 7, 2022
`Hearing Time: 9:00 AM1
`Hearing Dept: 4
`
`Trial Date: Not Yet Set
`
`(Complaint filed 3/11/2021)
`(Answer filed 8/31/22)
`(Counterclaim filed 8/31/22)
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendants.
`
`Cross-Complainant,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vs.
`
`
`
`
`
`vs.
`
`
`
`
`
`Cross-Defendants.
`
`
`1 Pursuant to Hon. Judge Thurston’s 1/25/2022 Standing Order, oral arguments may not actually occur
`because the matter is submitted on the briefing pursuant to L.R. 230(g), except in the event the Court
`determines a hearing would be helpful, then the Court will hold the hearing on the scheduled hearing
`date or reschedule the hearing date in accordance with the Court’s availability. This hearing date serves
`only to set the deadlines for opposition and reply briefs. [1/25/2022 Standing Order, Page 1, Lines 22-
`27.]
`
`
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT BEE SWEET’S
`MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS PURSUANT TO FRCP 12(c) AND/OR IN THE
`ALTERNATIVE TOTAL OR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO FRCP 56(a) FOR
`FAILURE TO MEET FEDERAL PLEADING STANDARDS
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`CAMPAGNE & CAMPAGNE
`A PROF. CORP.
`AIRPORT OFFICE CENTER
`1685 NORTH HELM AVENUE
`FRESNO, CALIFORNIA 93727
`TELEPHONE (559) 255-1637
`FAX (559) 252-9617
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00382-JLT-EPG Document 33-1 Filed 09/02/22 Page 2 of 32
`
`
`
`
`I.
`II.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Table of Contents
`INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF THE CASE .......................... 1
`LEGAL AUTHORITY. ................................................................................. 3
`A.
`Alternative Motions and Partial Motions Are Allowed: FRCP
`12(c) Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and/or FRCP 56
`Motion for Summary Judgment. ..................................................................... 3
`The Standard Of Review Of A Partial or Total Motion For
`Judgment on the Pleadings Pursuant to FRCP 12(c). ..................................... 4
`The Standard Of Review For A Total Or Partial Summary
`Judgment Motion Pursuant To FRCP 56(c) . ................................................. 5
`Federal Pleading Standards. ........................................................................... 7
`D.
`III. LEGAL ANALYSIS. ...................................................................................... 8
`A.
`The First Cause Of Action For Violation of The Migrant And
`Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act Fails To State A
`Claim For Relief. ............................................................................................ 8
`The Second Cause of Action For Alleged Violation Of
`Industrial Welfare Commission Order No. 14 and Labor Code
`Sections 510, 860, 1194 and 1199 For Alleged Failure To Pay
`Wages Fails To State A Claim For Relief. ..................................................... 9
`The Third Cause Of Action Claiming Failure to Provide Rest
`Periods Fails To State A Claim for Relief. ................................................... 12
`The Fourth Cause of Action Seeking Reimbursement of
`Business Expenses Fails To State A Claim For Relief. ................................ 13
`The Fifth Cause of Action For Alleged Wrongful Itemized
`Statements Fails To State A Claim For Relief. ............................................ 15
`The Sixth Cause of Action For Waiting Time Penalties Fails
`To State A Claim For Relief. ........................................................................ 19
`The Seventh Cause of Action For Business & Professions
`Code Section 17200 (UCL) Fails To State A Claim. ................................... 20
`IV. CONCLUSION. ............................................................................................ 22
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`G.
`
`
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT BEE SWEET’S
`MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS PURSUANT TO FRCP 12(c) AND/OR IN THE
`ALTERNATIVE TOTAL OR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO FRCP 56(a) FOR
`FAILURE TO MEET FEDERAL PLEADING STANDARDS
`
`Page i
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`CAMPAGNE & CAMPAGNE
`A PROF. CORP.
`AIRPORT OFFICE CENTER
`1685 NORTH HELM AVENUE
`FRESNO, CALIFORNIA 93727
`TELEPHONE (559) 255-1637
`FAX (559) 252-9617
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00382-JLT-EPG Document 33-1 Filed 09/02/22 Page 3 of 32
`
`Table of Authorities
`
`
`
`
`Cases
`Abromson v. American Pacific Corp.,
`114 F.3d 898 (9th Cir., 1997) ..................................................................................... 5
`American Nurses Ass’n v. Illinois,
`(7th Cir. 1986) 783 F.2d 716 ...................................................................................... 6
`Anderson v. Liberty Lobby Inc.,
`(1986) 447 U.S. 242 ................................................................................................... 7
`Angeles v. U.S. Airways, Inc.,
`2013 WL 622032 (N.D. cal. Feb. 19, 2013) ............................................................ 18
`Ascon Props., Inc. v. Mobil Oil Co.,
`866 F.2d 1149 (9th Cir. 1989) ................................................................................... 5
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
`556 U.S. 662 (2009) ............................................................................................... 2, 7
`Avalos v. Amazon.com LLC,
`2018 WL 3917970 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 14, 2018) ......................................................... 10
`Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,
`550 U.S. 544 (2007) ........................................................................................... 2, 5, 7
`British Airways Board v. Boeing Co.,
`(9th Cir. 1978) 585 F.2d 946 ...................................................................................... 6
`Brown v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,
`2013 WL 1701581 (N.D. Cal. April 18, 2013) .................................................. 18, 19
`
`Bush,
`
`2018 WL 2014807 ................................................................................................... 21
`Byrd v. Masonite Corp.,
`2016 WL 756523, (C.D. Cal. Feb. 25, 2016) ............................................................ 8
`Calderone v. United States,
`(6th Cir. 1986) 799 F.2d 254 ...................................................................................... 6
`Celotex Corp. v. Catrett
` (1986) 477 U.S. 317 .............................................................................................. 5, 6
`Chavez v. RSCR California, Inc.,
`2019 WL 1367812 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 26, 2019) ................................................... 10, 20
`Chavez v. United States,
`683 F.3d 1102 (9th Cir. 2012 ...................................................................................... 4
`Christie v. Tuesday Morning, Inc.,
`2015 WL 12781053 (C.D. Cal. 2015) ..................................................................... 10
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT BEE SWEET’S
`MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS PURSUANT TO FRCP 12(c) AND/OR IN THE
`ALTERNATIVE TOTAL OR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO FRCP 56(a) FOR
`FAILURE TO MEET FEDERAL PLEADING STANDARDS
`
`Page ii
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`CAMPAGNE & CAMPAGNE
`A PROF. CORP.
`AIRPORT OFFICE CENTER
`1685 NORTH HELM AVENUE
`FRESNO, CALIFORNIA 93727
`TELEPHONE (559) 255-1637
`FAX (559) 252-9617
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00382-JLT-EPG Document 33-1 Filed 09/02/22 Page 4 of 32
`
`
`
`Clark v. Lakewood,
`259 F.3d 996 (9th Cir., 2001) ................................................................................... 22
`
`Clark v. Sup. Ct.,
`50 Cal.4th 605 (2010) ............................................................................................... 21
`Cornelius v. L.A. Cnty. Etc. Auth.,
`49 Cal.App.4th 1761 (1996) ..................................................................................... 22
`Dawson v. HITCO Carbon Composites, Inc.
`2017 WL 7806618 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 20, 2017) .............................................. 10, 18, 19
`Delaterre v. American Red Cross,
`2013 WL 5573101 (C.D. Cal., Oct. 9, 2013)........................................................... 19
`Diaz v. Old Dominion Freight Line, Inc.,
`C.D. Cal., Case No. 18-2262-DSF (SHKx) (August 26, 2019) ............................... 21
`Ellis v. Costco Wholesale Corp.,
`657 F.3d 970 (9th Cir., 2001) ................................................................................... 22
`Fajardo v. County of L.A.,
`179 F.3d 698 (9th Cir. 1999) ...................................................................................... 4
`Farm Credit Svcs. v. Am. State Bank,
`339 F.3d 764 (8th Cir. 2003) ..................................................................................... 7
`Guerrero v. Haliburton Energy Services,
`2016 WL 6494296 ....................................................................................... 18, 20, 21
`Heliotrope Gen., Inc. v. Ford Motor Co.,
`189 F.3d 971 (9th Cir. 1999) ...................................................................................... 4
`In re Daou Sys., Inc.,
` 411 F.3d 1006 (9th Cir. 2005) .................................................................................. 5
`Intri-Plex Techs. V. Crest Grp.,
`499 F3d 1048 (9th Cir. 2007) .................................................................................... 5
`Jue v. Costco Wholesale Corp.,
`2020 WL 889284, (N.D. Cal. March 11, 2010) ......................................................... 8
`Kirby v. Immoos Fire Protection, Inc.,
`53 Cal.4th at 1244 ..................................................................................................... 21
`Landers v. Quality Communications, Inc.
`771 F.3d 638 (9th Cir. 2015) ............................................................................... 9, 13
`Lonberg v. City of Riverside,
` 300 F. Supp.2d 942 (C.D. Cal. 2004) ....................................................................... 4
`Lopez,
`2015 WL 4504691 ................................................................................................... 20
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT BEE SWEET’S
`MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS PURSUANT TO FRCP 12(c) AND/OR IN THE
`ALTERNATIVE TOTAL OR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO FRCP 56(a) FOR
`FAILURE TO MEET FEDERAL PLEADING STANDARDS
`
`Page iii
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`CAMPAGNE & CAMPAGNE
`A PROF. CORP.
`AIRPORT OFFICE CENTER
`1685 NORTH HELM AVENUE
`FRESNO, CALIFORNIA 93727
`TELEPHONE (559) 255-1637
`FAX (559) 252-9617
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00382-JLT-EPG Document 33-1 Filed 09/02/22 Page 5 of 32
`
`
`
`Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp.,
`(1986) 475 U.S. 547 ................................................................................................... 7
`
`McMillian v. Overton Sec. Servs., Inc.,
`2017 WL 4150906 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 19, 2017) ........................................................ 11
`Mendiondo v. Centinela Hosp. Med. Ctr.,
`521 F.3d 1097 (9th Cir. 2008). ................................................................................... 4
`Ortega v. Watkins & Shepard Trucking, Inc.,
` 2019 WL 2871161 (C.D. Cal. 2019) ................................................................ 10, 22
`Ortiz v. Sodexho Operations, LLC,
`2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 145170; .............................................................. 8, 11, 13, 14
`Pac. W. Grp. V. Real Time Sols.,
`Inc., 321 Fed.App’x 566 (9th Cir. 2008) ................................................................... 4
`Parsittie v. Schneider Logistics,
`2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80193 ................................................................................. 16
`Parson v. Golden State FC, LLC,
`2016 WL 1734010 (N.D. Cal., May 2, 2016) .......................................................... 22
`Ramirez v. Manpower Inc.,
`2014 WL 2116531 (N.D. Cal., Jan. 13, 2014) ......................................................... 18
`Ritenour v. Carrington Mortgage Services, LLC,
` 228 F.Supp.3d 1025 (C.D. Cal., 2017) ................................................................... 20
`Sanchez v. Aero Group Retail Holdings, Inc.,
` 2013 WL 1942166 (N.D. Cal., May 8, 2013) ......................................................... 19
`Sanders v. Old Dominion Freight Line, Inc.,
` 2018 WL 6321631 (C.D. Cal., Sept. 13, 2018) ...................................................... 21
`Schneider v. TRW, Inc.,
` (9th Cir. 1991) 938 F.2d 986 ..................................................................................... 6
`Sherman v. Schneider National Carriers, Inc.,
`2019 WL 3220585 (C.D. Cal. March 6, 2019) ........................................................ 17
`Silva v. U.S. Bancorp,
`2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 152817 ................................................................................. 5
`Soratorio v. Tesoro Refining and Marketing Co. LLC,
` 2017 WL 1520416 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 26, 2017) ........................................ 9, 18, 20, 21
`Soto v. Motel 6 Operating, L.P.,
`4 Cal.App.5th 385 (2016) ......................................................................................... 17
`Suarez v. Bank of America,
`2018 WL 2431473 (N.D. Cal. May 30, 2018) ......................................................... 18
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT BEE SWEET’S
`MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS PURSUANT TO FRCP 12(c) AND/OR IN THE
`ALTERNATIVE TOTAL OR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO FRCP 56(a) FOR
`FAILURE TO MEET FEDERAL PLEADING STANDARDS
`
`Page iv
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`CAMPAGNE & CAMPAGNE
`A PROF. CORP.
`AIRPORT OFFICE CENTER
`1685 NORTH HELM AVENUE
`FRESNO, CALIFORNIA 93727
`TELEPHONE (559) 255-1637
`FAX (559) 252-9617
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00382-JLT-EPG Document 33-1 Filed 09/02/22 Page 6 of 32
`
`
`
`Summit Media LLC v. City of Los Angeles,
`530 F.Supp.2d 1084 (C.D. Cal. 2008) ....................................................................... 4
`
`Tavares v. Cargill, Inc.,
`2019 WL 2918061 (E.D. Cal. July 8, 2019) ............................................................ 18
`United State v. Ritchie,
`342 F.3d 903 (9th Cir. 2003) ...................................................................................... 4
`Valandingham v. Bojorquez,
` (9th Cir. 1989) 866 F.2d 1135 ................................................................................... 7
`Ventress v. Japan Airlines,
`603 F.3d 676 (9th Cir. 2010) ...................................................................................... 4
`Woo v. Home Loan Group, L.P., 2007 WL 6624925 (S.D. Cal., July 27,
`2007) ........................................................................................................................ 21
`Woodson v. State of California,
`No. 2:15-cv-01206-MCE-CKD, 2016 WL 524870 ................................................... 4
`
`Statutes
`29 U.S.C. §§ 1801-1872 ....................................................................................................... 8
`Cal. Labor Code Section 226(e)(1) ..................................................................................... 18
`FRCP 12(b)(6) ...................................................................................................................... 4
`FRCP 12(c) ........................................................................................................... 1, 3, 4, 5, 1
`FRCP 19 ................................................................................................................................ 1
`FRCP 56 ............................................................................................................................ 3, 4
`FRCP 56 (a)(b) ...................................................................................................................... 6
`FRCP 56(a) ............................................................................................................... 1, 3, 5, 1
`FRCP 56(c) ....................................................................................................................... 5, 6
`FRCP 8 ...................................................................................................................... 7, 18, 20
`FRCP Rule 56(c) ................................................................................................................... 7
`FRCP Rule 56(e) ................................................................................................................... 7
`Labor Code Section 201...................................................................................................... 19
`Labor Code Section 226.......................................................................................... 15, 17, 19
`Labor Code Section 226(a) ................................................................................................. 17
`Labor Code Section 226(e) ................................................................................................. 16
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT BEE SWEET’S
`MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS PURSUANT TO FRCP 12(c) AND/OR IN THE
`ALTERNATIVE TOTAL OR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO FRCP 56(a) FOR
`FAILURE TO MEET FEDERAL PLEADING STANDARDS
`
`Page v
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`CAMPAGNE & CAMPAGNE
`A PROF. CORP.
`AIRPORT OFFICE CENTER
`1685 NORTH HELM AVENUE
`FRESNO, CALIFORNIA 93727
`TELEPHONE (559) 255-1637
`FAX (559) 252-9617
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00382-JLT-EPG Document 33-1 Filed 09/02/22 Page 7 of 32
`
`
`
`Labor Code Section 226(e)(1) ...................................................................................... 15, 18
`
`Labor Code Section 226.7............................................................................................. 12, 21
`Labor Code Section 226.7(c) .............................................................................................. 12
`Labor Code Section 2810.3(d) ................................................................................ 1, 2, 3, 22
`Regulation 8 CCR 13832 ...................................................................................................... 1
`
`Other Authorities
`Analysis and Decision of Summary Judgment Motions, (1992) 139 FRD
`441 ............................................................................................................................. 6
`The Rutter Group, Federal Civil Procedure Before Trial (2020) by Judge
`Phillips and Judge Stevenson, at Section 9:14, at page 9-4 ....................................... 3
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT BEE SWEET’S
`MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS PURSUANT TO FRCP 12(c) AND/OR IN THE
`ALTERNATIVE TOTAL OR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO FRCP 56(a) FOR
`FAILURE TO MEET FEDERAL PLEADING STANDARDS
`
`Page vi
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`CAMPAGNE & CAMPAGNE
`A PROF. CORP.
`AIRPORT OFFICE CENTER
`1685 NORTH HELM AVENUE
`FRESNO, CALIFORNIA 93727
`TELEPHONE (559) 255-1637
`FAX (559) 252-9617
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00382-JLT-EPG Document 33-1 Filed 09/02/22 Page 8 of 32
`
`I.
`
`
`
`
`Kingsley filed a Class Action Complaint (Doc. No. 1) (hereinafter “Montes Action”) with this
`
`INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF THE CASE
`First Action (Montes). On August 18, 2020, the law firm of Kingsley &
`
`Court (Case No. 1:20-cv-01162-JLT-EPG) on behalf of Plaintiffs Daniel Montes, Maria Diaz, and
`
`Octaviano Montalvo, and others similarly situated (hereinafter “Montes Plaintiffs”) against only
`
`one Defendant, namely Defendant Bee Sweet Citrus, Inc. (hereinafter “Bee Sweet”) (See Montes
`
`Doc. 1, hereinafter “Montes Action”). The sole theory of the Montes Complaint and its 7 causes
`
`of action contained therein is that Bee Sweet was allegedly “jointly liable” for the Labor
`
`Contractors’ own alleged payroll mistakes on its payroll, not on Bee Sweet’s payroll. The Montes
`
`Complaint’s theories (against solely Bee Sweet for only the alleged wrongs committed by the
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Labor Contractors) were as follows:
`Violation of Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection
`1.
`Act (MSPA)
`Violation of Cal. Lab. Code §§ 510, 1194, and 1199 for Unpaid
`Wages and Overtime
`Failure to Compensate for Rest Periods under Cal. Lab. Code §
`226.7
`Failure to Reimburse Business Expenses for Tools and Equipment
`Under Cal. Lab. Code § 2802
`Violation of Lab. Code § 226
`Waiting Time Penalties Under Cal. Lab. Code § 203
`Violation of Cal. Business & Professions Code (UCL) § 17200 et
`seq.
`On October 4, 2020 Bee Sweet filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings
`
`4.
`
`5.
`6.
`7.
`
`pursuant to FRCP 12(c) and/or for Summary Judgment pursuant to FRCP 56(a) on the grounds
`
`that: (1) Plaintiffs had failed to give the “30 day pre-filing notice (warning) of civil action” to Bee
`Sweet as required under California Labor Code Section 2810.3(d) ; and (2) had failed to join the
`indispensable Labor Contractors and other farmer/client employers as required under FRCP 19
`
`and Calif. Regulation 8 CCR 13832. (Montes Doc. 16-1).
`
`On November 2, 2020 Bee Sweet filed a second Motion for Judgment on the
`
`Pleadings pursuant to FRCP 12(c) and/or for Summary Judgment pursuant to FRCP 56(a) on the
`
`grounds that: (1) Plaintiffs had failed to plead compliance with the 30 day pre-filing notice
`
`(warning) of the civil suit to Bee Sweet as required under California Labor Code Section
`
`2810.3(d); and (2) the claims failed to state facts sufficient to state a cause of action against Bee
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT BEE SWEET’S
`MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS PURSUANT TO FRCP 12(c) AND/OR IN THE
`ALTERNATIVE TOTAL OR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO FRCP 56(a) FOR
`FAILURE TO MEET FEDERAL PLEADING STANDARDS
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`CAMPAGNE & CAMPAGNE
`A PROF. CORP.
`AIRPORT OFFICE CENTER
`1685 NORTH HELM AVENUE
`FRESNO, CALIFORNIA 93727
`TELEPHONE (559) 255-1637
`FAX (559) 252-9617
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00382-JLT-EPG Document 33-1 Filed 09/02/22 Page 9 of 32
`
`
`
`Sweet as they failed to meet the pleading requirements set forth in the United States Supreme
`
`Court cases of Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (“Twombly”) and
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009) (“Iqbal”). (Montes Doc. 21).
`
`By Order dated August 17, 2022, this Court granted Bee Sweet’s Motion for
`
`Judgment on the Pleadings dismissing the Montes Action with prejudice for failing to comply
`
`with the California Labor Code Section 2810.3(d) pre-filing of civil suit notice (warning)
`
`requirement (See Montes Doc. 44). As a result of the dismissal with prejudice, the Court denied
`
`the second Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (i.e., failure to meet pleading requirements) as
`
`moot. (See Montes Doc. 44 at pg. 7 lines 8-12).
`
`Second Action (Amaro). On March 31, 2021, after the filing of the two Bee
`
`Sweet Motions to Dismiss/Judgment on the Pleadings in the Montes Action, the law firm of
`
`Kingsley & Kingsley filed a duplicative Class Action Complaint with this Court (Case No. 1:21-
`
`cv-00382-NONE-HBK) on behalf of Plaintiffs Rafael Marquez Amaro, Javier Barrera, and others
`
`similarly situated (hereinafter “Amaro Plaintiffs”) asserting nearly identical claims as asserted in
`
`the Montes Action again against only one Defendant, namely Defendant Bee Sweet Citrus, Inc.
`
`(hereinafter “Bee Sweet”) (See Amaro Doc. 1, hereinafter “Amaro Action”). The sole theory of
`
`the Complaint and its 8 causes of action (they added a PAGA action as the 8th cause of action)
`
`contained therein were the same as in the Montes Action (i.e., that Bee Sweet was allegedly
`
`“jointly liable” for the Labor Contractors’ alleged payroll mistakes under California Labor Code
`
`Section 2810.3). The Complaints (against solely Bee Sweet for the alleged wrongs committed by
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`the Labor Contractors) were as follows:
`Violation of Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection
`1.
`Act (MSPA)
`Violation of Cal. Lab. Code §§ 510, 1194, and 1199 for Unpaid
`Wages and Overtime
`Failure to Compensate for Rest Periods under Cal. Lab. Code §
`226.7
`Failure to Reimburse Business Expenses for Tools and Equipment
`Under Cal. Lab. Code § 2802
`Violation of Lab. Code § 226
`Waiting Time Penalties Under Cal. Lab. Code § 203
`Violation of Cal. Business & Professions Code (UCL) § 17200 et
`seq.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`6.
`7.
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT BEE SWEET’S
`MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS PURSUANT TO FRCP 12(c) AND/OR IN THE
`ALTERNATIVE TOTAL OR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO FRCP 56(a) FOR
`FAILURE TO MEET FEDERAL PLEADING STANDARDS
`
`Page 2
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`CAMPAGNE & CAMPAGNE
`A PROF. CORP.
`AIRPORT OFFICE CENTER
`1685 NORTH HELM AVENUE
`FRESNO, CALIFORNIA 93727
`TELEPHONE (559) 255-1637
`FAX (559) 252-9617
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00382-JLT-EPG Document 33-1 Filed 09/02/22 Page 10 of 32
`
`
`
`
`Penalties Pursuant to Cal. Labor Code Sec. 2699 et seq.,
`(“PAGA”)
`On April 2, 2020 Bee Sweet filed a Motion to Dismiss the Amaro Action pursuant
`
`8.
`
`to 12(b)(6) and (f) and/or in the alternative for Summary Judgment pursuant to FRCP 56(a) on
`
`the grounds that the case was duplicative of the Montes Action. (Amaro Doc. No. 4). On
`
`September 9, 2021 Bee Sweet filed a Motion to Consolidate the Montes Action and Amaro
`
`Action. (Amaro Doc. No. 12).
`
`Following the Court’s Order dated August 17, 2022, granting Bee Sweet’s Motion
`
`for Judgment on the Pleadings dismissing the Montes Action with prejudice for failing to comply
`
`with the California Labor Code Section 2810.3(d) pre-filing notice requirement (See Montes Doc.
`
`44), the Court denied Bee Sweet’s Motion to Dismiss the Amaro Action as moot because there
`
`was no longer a prior action pending. (See Amaro Doc. 23). The Court also denied the Bee Sweet
`
`Motion to Consolidate the two cases for the same reason. (See Amaro Doc. 23),
`
`As set forth below, the Amaro Complaint fails to satisfy the Federal Pleading
`
`requirements. As a result, Defendant Bee Sweet hereby moves this Court for an Order for
`
`judgment on the pleadings under FRCP 12(c) and/or for partial summary judgment under FRCP
`
`II.
`
`56 on each of the 8 causes of action as set forth ad seriatim below.
`
`LEGAL AUTHORITY.
`
`Alternative Motions and Partial Motions Are Allowed: FRCP 12(c)
`Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and/or FRCP 56 Motion for
`Summary Judgment.
`A party like Bee Sweet may… “make a motion for judgment on the pleadings [Rule 12(c)]
`
`A.
`
`or, in the alternative, for summary judgment [FRCP 56].” [Quote from The Rutter Group,
`
`Federal Civil Procedure Before Trial (2020) by Judge Phillips and Judge Stevenson, at Section
`
`9:14, at page 9-4.] Also “full” or “partial” summary judgment may be granted. [FRCP 56(a)]. So
`
`too regarding motions for judgment on the pleadings.
`
`“It is the practice of many judges to permit ‘partial’ judgment on the
`pleadings (e.g. on the first claim for relief or the third affirmative defense).
`See Independence News, Inc. v. City of Charlotte, (4th Cir. 2009) 568 F.3d
`148, 154; Strigliabotti v. Franklin Resources, Inc., 568 F.3d 148, 154;
`Strigliabotti v. Franklin Resources, Inc., (N.D. Calif. 2005) 398 F.Supp.2d
`1049, 1097 (citing text) Carry v. BACA, (C.D. Ca. 2007) 497 F.Supp.2d 1129,
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT BEE SWEET’S
`MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS PURSUANT TO FRCP 12(c) AND/OR IN THE
`ALTERNATIVE TOTAL OR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO FRCP 56(a) FOR
`FAILURE TO MEET FEDERAL PLEADING STANDARDS
`
`Page 3
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`CAMPAGNE & CAMPAGNE
`A PROF. CORP.
`AIRPORT OFFICE CENTER
`1685 NORTH HELM AVENUE
`FRESNO, CALIFORNIA 93727
`TELEPHONE (559) 255-1637
`FAX (559) 252-9617
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00382-JLT-EPG Document 33-1 Filed 09/02/22 Page 11 of 32
`
`
`
`
`1138 (citing text).” The Rutter Group, Federal Civil Procedure Before Trial
`(2020), Id., at Section 9:340.
`
`The Standard Of Review Of A Partial or Total Motion For Judgment
`on the Pleadings Pursuant to FRCP 12(c).
`Pursuant to FRCP 12(c) governing judgments on the pleadings, “[a]fter the
`
`B.
`
`pleadings are closed – but early enough not to delay trial – a party may move for judgment on the
`
`pleadings.” Judgment on the pleadings is appropriate when, even if all material facts in the
`
`pleading under attack are true, the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
`Ventress v. Japan Airlines, 603 F.3d 676, 681 (9th Cir. 2010) [quoting Fajardo v. County of L.A.,
`179 F.3d 698, 699 (9th Cir. 1999)].
`The legal standard that governs a FRCP 12(c) judgment on the pleadings motion is
`
`the same as that which governs a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. Chavez v. United States, 683 F.3d 1102,
`1108 (9th Cir. 2012). “Dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) is appropriate only where the complaint
`lacks a cognizable legal theory or sufficient facts to support a cognizable legal theory.”
`Mendiondo v. Centinela Hosp. Med. Ctr., 521 F.3d 1097, 1104 (9th Cir. 2008).
`If matters outside the pleadings are considered, the motion shall automatically be
`
`alternatively treated as one for summary judgment pursuant to FRCP 56. [FRCP 12(c).] A district
`
`court may, however, “consider certain materials – documents attached to the complaint,
`
`documents incorporated by reference in the complaint, or matters of judicial notice – without
`
`converting the motion to dismiss [or motion for judgment on the pleadings] into a motion for
`summary judgment.” United State v. Ritchie, 342 F.3d 903, 908 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Summit
`Media LLC v. City of Los Angeles, 530 F.Supp.2d 1084, 1096 (C.D. Cal. 2008). Extrinsic
`
`evidence that is subject to Judicial Notice may be properly considered in a Rule 12(c) motion.
`Heliotrope Gen., Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 189 F.3d 971, 978 n. 18 (9th Cir. 1999)
`Courts have discretion both to grant a motion for judgment on the pleadings with
`
`leave to amend or with prejudice. Lonberg v. City of Riverside, 300 F. Supp.2d 942, 945 (C.D.
`
`Cal. 2004) (citations omitted); see also Pac. W. Grp. V. Real Time Sols., Inc., 321 Fed.App’x 566,
`
`569 (9th Cir. 2008); Woodson v. State of California, No. 2:15-cv-01206-MCE-CKD, 2016 WL
`
`524870, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 10, 2016). Generally, dismissal without leave to amend is proper
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT BEE SWEET’S
`MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS PURSUANT TO FRCP 12(c) AND/OR IN THE
`ALTERNATIVE TOTAL OR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO FRCP 56(a) FOR
`FAILURE TO MEET FEDERAL PLEADING STANDARDS
`
`Page 4
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14