Case 3:21-cv-09054-LB Document 24 Filed 02/22/22 Page 1 of 35
`
`ERIN M. CONNELL (SBN 223355)
`econnell@orrick.com
`ALEXANDRA H. STATHOPOULOS (SBN 286681)
`astathopoulos@orrick.com
`LARA FAZEL GRAHAM (SBN 314003)
`lgraham@orrick.com
`TIERRA D. PIENS (SBN 315290)
`tpiens@orrick.com
`ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
`The Orrick Building
`405 Howard Street
`San Francisco, CA 94105-2669
`Telephone:
`+1 415 773 5700
`Facsimile:
`+1 415 773 5759
`
`Attorneys for Defendant
`SONY INTERACTIVE ENTERTAINMENT LLC
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`EMMA MAJO, an individual,
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`SONY INTERACTIVE ENTERTAINMENT
`LLC, a California limited liability Company,
`Defendant.
`
`Case No. 3:21-cv-09054-LB
`DEFENDANT SONY INTERACTIVE
`ENTERTAINMENT LLC’S NOTICE OF
`MOTION AND MOTION;
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
`AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
`MOTION TO DISMISS AND STRIKE
`Date:
`April 14, 2022
`Time:
`9:30 a.m.
`Courtroom: B, 15th Floor
`Judge: Hon. Laurel Beeler
`
`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
`
`SIE’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION
`TO DISMISS AND STRIKE 3:21-CV-09054-
`LB
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-09054-LB Document 24 Filed 02/22/22 Page 2 of 35
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I.
`II.
`III.
`IV.
`
`V.
`
`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
`
`C.
`D.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1
`ISSUES TO BE DECIDED ................................................................................................ 3
`PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ..................................................................................... 3
`RELEVANT FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS ....................................................................... 3
`A.
`Plaintiff Alleges She Personally Experiences Gender Bias at SIE ......................... 3
`B.
`Plaintiff Alleges She Was Not Promoted, Which She Attributes to Gender
`Bias at SIE ............................................................................................................... 4
`Plaintiff Alleges She Was Terminated For Complaining About Gender Bias........ 5
`Plaintiff Alleges SIE Broadly Discriminates Against Women in Pay and
`Promotions .............................................................................................................. 6
`LEGAL STANDARDS ....................................................................................................... 6
`A.
`Motion to Dismiss ................................................................................................... 6
`B.
`Motion to Strike ...................................................................................................... 7
`THE COURT SHOULD GRANT SIE’S MOTION TO DISMISS AND STRIKE. .......... 8
`A.
`Plaintiff Fails to Sufficiently Plead a Federal Equal Pay Act Claim ...................... 8
`1.
`The Court Should Dismiss Plaintiff’s Federal EPA Claim Because
`She Simply Recites the Elements of the Claim With No Supporting
`Facts ............................................................................................................ 8
`Plaintiff Fails to Allege a Collective Action is Procedurally Proper ........ 10
`2.
`Plaintiff’s Rule 23 California Equal Pay Act Claim Fails Because She
`Recites Only the Legal Elements and Provides Conclusory Allegations, But
`Alleges No Facts ................................................................................................... 12
`Plaintiff’s Rule 23 FEHA Discrimination Claims Fail ......................................... 13
`1.
`Plaintiff Does Not Sufficiently Allege FEHA Harassment....................... 14
`2.
`Plaintiff’s Failure to Prevent Claim is Not Sufficiently Pled .................... 15
`3.
`Plaintiff’s Unpaid Wages Claim Is Not Properly Pled.............................. 16
`The Court Should Strike the Class Allegations Because Plaintiff Alleges
`No Facts Suggesting She Can Satisfy the Rule 23 Procedural Requirements ...... 16
`1.
`Plaintiff’s Unascertainable Class Should be Stricken ............................... 17
`2.
`Plaintiff Alleges No Facts Suggesting She Can Establish Adequacy ....... 17
`3.
`Plaintiff Alleges No Facts Suggesting She Can Satisfy the
`Commonality Requirement ....................................................................... 18
`a.
`California EPA .............................................................................. 19
`b.
`FEHA ............................................................................................ 20
`Plaintiff Alleges No Facts Suggesting She Can Show Predominance ...... 21
`a.
`California EPA .............................................................................. 21
`b.
`FEHA ............................................................................................ 21
`
`D.
`
`4.
`
`- i -
`
`SIE’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION
`TO DISMISS AND STRIKE 3:21-CV-09054-LB
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-09054-LB Document 24 Filed 02/22/22 Page 3 of 35
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`5.
`
`E.
`F.
`
`Plaintiff Fails to Allege Facts Showing a Class Action Will be
`Manageable ............................................................................................... 21
`a.
`California EPA .............................................................................. 21
`b.
`FEHA ............................................................................................ 22
`Plaintiff Fails to State Derivative UCL and PAGA Claims .................................. 22
`Plaintiff Alleges Insufficient Facts to Sustain Her Individual Claims .................. 23
`1.
`Plaintiff Fails to State a Claim for Wrongful Discharge (Public
`Policy) ....................................................................................................... 23
`Plaintiff Fails to State a Claim for Intentional or Negligent
`Infliction of Emotional Distress ................................................................ 23
`The Court Should Dismiss Plaintiff’s Claim for “Discrimination
`and Harassment—Termination” Under FEHA Because It
`Confusingly Lumps Discrimination and Retaliation Into One Legal
`Standard..................................................................................................... 24
`Plaintiff Fails to Plead Facts Sufficient to Support Her Claims for
`Retaliation Under California Labor Code Sections 1102.5 and 232.5 ...... 24
`VII. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 25
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`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
`
`- ii -
`
`SIE’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION
`TO DISMISS AND STRIKE 3:21-CV-09054-LB
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-09054-LB Document 24 Filed 02/22/22 Page 4 of 35
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`Achal v. Gate Gourmet, Inc.,
`114 F. Supp. 3d 781 (N.D. Cal. 2015) ...................................................................................... 3
`
`Adams v. Northstar Location Servs., LLC,
`No. 09-CV-1063, 2010 WL 3911415 (W.D.N.Y. Oct. 5, 2010) .............................................. 9
`
`Alvarado v. Wal-Mart Assocs., Inc.,
`No. 220CV01926ABKKX, 2021 WL 6104234 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 3, 2021) ............................. 18
`
`Am. Fed’n of State, Cty., & Mun. Emps., AFL-CIO (AFSCME) v. State of Wash.,
`770 F.2d 1401 (9th Cir. 1985) ................................................................................................. 14
`
`Arafat v. Sch. Bd. of Broward Cty.,
`549 F. App’x 872 (11th Cir. 2013) ........................................................................................... 8
`
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
`556 U.S. 662 (2009) ............................................................................................................ 7, 13
`
`Associated Gen. Contractors of Cal., Inc. v. Cal. State Council of Carpenters,
`459 U.S. 519 (1983) ............................................................................................................ 7, 17
`
`Barrett v. Forest Lab’ys, Inc.,
`No. 12 CV. 5224 RA MHD, 2015 WL 5155692 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 2, 2015)............................ 11
`
`Bauer v. Curators of Univ. of Missouri,
`680 F.3d 1043 (8th Cir. 2012) ................................................................................................. 10
`
`Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
`550 U.S. 544 (2007) ........................................................................................................ 6, 7, 17
`
`Benedict v. Hewlett-Packard Co.,
`314 F.R.D. 457 (N.D. Cal. 2016) ...................................................................................... 18, 21
`
`Bush v. Vaco Tech. Servs., LLC,
`No. 17-CV-05605-BLF, 2019 WL 3290654 (N.D. Cal. July 22, 2019) ................................. 10
`
`Chan v. Canadian Standards Ass’n,
`No. SACV192162JVSJDE, 2020 WL 2496174 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 16, 2020) .......................... 24
`
`Collins v. Gamestop Corp.,
`No. C10-1210-TEH, 2010 WL 3077671 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 6, 2010) .......................................... 8
`
`Cucuzza v. City of Santa Clara,
`104 Cal. App. 4th 1031 (2002)................................................................................................ 13
`
`- iii -
`
`SIE’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION
`TO DISMISS AND STRIKE 3:21-CV-09054-LB
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-09054-LB Document 24 Filed 02/22/22 Page 5 of 35
`
`Donaldson v. Microsoft Corp.,
`205 F.R.D. 558 (W.D. Wash. 2001) ....................................................................................... 18
`
`Duran v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n,
`59 Cal. 4th 1 (2014) ............................................................................................................... 22
`
`E.E.O.C. v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J.,
`768 F.3d 247 (2d Cir. 2014) ...................................................................................................... 9
`
`Ellis v. Costco Wholesale Corp.,
`657 F.3d 970 (9th Cir. 2011) ................................................................................................... 18
`
`Fairchild v. Quinnipiac Univ.,
`16 F. Supp. 3d 89 (D. Conn. 2014) ........................................................................................... 8
`
`Farmers Ins. Exch. v. Superior Court,
`2 Cal. 4th 377 (1992) .............................................................................................................. 22
`
`Flores v. Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc.,
`No. SACV 14-1093 AG, 2015 WL 12912337 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 16, 2015) ............................. 17
`
`U.S. ex rel. Garst v. Lockheed-Martin Corp.,
`328 F.3d 374 (7th Cir. 2003) ................................................................................................... 24
`
`Green v. Par Pools, Inc.,
`111 Cal. App. 4th 620 (2003).................................................................................................. 12
`
`Grotz v. Kaiser Found. Hosps.,
`No. C-12-3539 EMC, 2012 WL 5350254 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 29, 2012) ..................................... 23
`
`Gunther v. Washington Cty.,
`623 F.2d 1303 (9th Cir. 1979), aff’d, 452 U.S. 161 (1981) ................................................ 8, 21
`
`Guthmann v. Classic Residence Mgmt. Ltd. P’ship,
`No. 16-CV-02680-LHK, 2017 WL 3007076 (N.D. Cal. July 14, 2017) ................................ 24
`
`Guz v. Bechtel Nat’l. Inc.,
`24 Cal. 4th 317 (2000) ...................................................................................................... 13, 22
`
`Hall v. Cty. of Los Angeles,
`148 Cal. App. 4th 318 (2007)............................................................................................ 12, 13
`
`Harris v. Civ. Serv. Comm’n.,
`65 Cal. App. 4th 1356 (1998).................................................................................................. 13
`
`Hernandez v. Premium Merch. Funding One, LLC,
`No. 19-CV-1727, 2020 WL 3962108 (S.D.N.Y. July 13, 2020) ........................................ 9, 10
`
`Janken v. GM Hughes Elecs.,
`46 Cal. App. 4th 55 (1996)................................................................................................ 14, 23
`
`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
`
`- iv -
`
`SIE’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION
`TO DISMISS AND STRIKE 3:21-CV-09054-LB
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-09054-LB Document 24 Filed 02/22/22 Page 6 of 35
`
`Johnson v. Q.E.D. Envtl. Sys. Inc.,
`No. 16-CV-01454-WHO, 2017 WL 1685099 (N.D. Cal. May 3, 2017) ................................ 11
`
`Kairam v. W. Side GI, LLC,
`793 F. App’x 23 (2d Cir. 2019)........................................................................................... 8, 10
`
`Kamm v. Cal. City Dev. Co.,
`509 F.2d 205 (9th Cir. 1975) ................................................................................................... 16
`
`Kao v. Holiday,
`12 Cal. App. 5th 947 (2017).................................................................................................... 16
`
`Kasky v. Nike, Inc.,
`27 Cal. 4th 939 (2002) ............................................................................................................ 22
`
`Kassman v. KPMG LLP,
`416 F. Supp 3d 252 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) ................................................................................ 11, 19
`
`Kelly-Zurian v. Wohl Shoe Co.,
`22 Cal. App. 4th 397 (1994).................................................................................................... 15
`
`Lee v. Eden Med. Ctr.,
`690 F. Supp. 2d 1011 (N.D. Cal. 2010) .................................................................................. 15
`
`Lehman v. Bergmann Assocs., Inc.,
`11 F. Supp. 3d 408 (W.D.N.Y. 2014) ....................................................................................... 8
`
`Litty v. Merrill Lynch & Co.,
`No. CV 14-0425 PA PJWX, 2014 WL 5904904 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 10, 2014).......................... 23
`
`Lopez v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.,
`No. 2:14-CV-05576-AB-JCX, 2020 WL 1189841 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 11, 2020) ....................... 23
`
`Lyle v. Warner Bros. Television Prods.,
`38 Cal. 4th 264 (2006) ............................................................................................................ 15
`
`Marlene F. v. Affiliated Psychiatric Med. Clinic, Inc.,
`48 Cal. 3d 583 (1989) ............................................................................................................. 23
`
`McKenna v. Permanente Med. Grp., Inc.,
`894 F. Supp. 2d 1258 (E.D. Cal. 2012) ................................................................................... 24
`
`Meacham v. Knolls Atomic Power Lab’y.,
`554 U.S. 84 (2008) .................................................................................................................. 14
`
`Miller v. Cont’l Airlines, Inc.,
`260 F. Supp. 2d 931 (N.D. Cal. 2003) ...................................................................................... 7
`
`Moussouris v. Microsoft Corp.,
`No. C15-1483JLR, 2018 WL 3328418 (W.D. Wash. June 25, 2018) ................................... 18
`
`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
`
`- v -
`
`SIE’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION
`TO DISMISS AND STRIKE 3:21-CV-09054-LB
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-09054-LB Document 24 Filed 02/22/22 Page 7 of 35
`
`O’Reilly v. Daugherty Sys., Inc.,
`Case No. 4:18-cv-01283 SRC, 2021 WL 4514293 (E.D. Mo. Sept. 30, 2021) ...................... 12
`
`Palmer v. Combined Ins. Co.,
`No. 02 C 1764, 2003 WL 466065 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 24, 2003) ................................................... 16
`
`Perfect 10, Inc. v. Visa Int’l Serv. Ass’n,
`494 F.3d 788 (9th Cir. 2007) ..................................................................................................... 7
`
`Peterson v. U.S. Bancorp Equip. Fin., Inc.,
`No. C 10-0942 SBA, 2010 WL 2794359 (N.D. Cal. July 15, 2010) ...................................... 23
`
`Pilgrim v. Universal Health Card, LLC,
`660 F.3d 943 (6th Cir. 2011) ................................................................................................... 17
`
`Puffer v. Allstate Ins. Co.,
`255 F.R.D. 450 (N.D. Ill. 2009), aff'd, 675 F.3d 709 (7th Cir. 2012) ..................................... 18
`
`Ramirez v. Baxter Credit Union,
`No. 16-cv-03765-SI, 2017 WL 1064991 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 21, 2017) ...................................... 16
`
`Randall v. Rolls-Royce Corp.,
`637 F.3d 818 (7th Cir. 2011) ................................................................................................... 18
`
`Reno v. Baird,
`18 Cal. 4th 640 (1998) ................................................................................................ 14, 15, 23
`
`Reyna v. WestRock Co.,
`No. 20-CV-01666-BLF, 2020 WL 5074390 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2020) ................................ 22
`
`Rivera v. Children's & Women's Physicians of Westchester, LLP,
`No. 16-CIV-714 (PGG) (DCF), 2017 WL 1065490 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 18, 2017) ....................... 9
`
`Rivera v. Saul Chevrolet, Inc.,
`No. 16-CV-05966-LHK, 2017 WL 3267540 (N.D. Cal. July 31, 2017) ................................ 11
`
`Rose v. Goldman, Sachs & Co.,
`163 F. Supp. 2d 238 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) ....................................................................................... 9
`
`Sanders v. Apple Inc.,
`672 F. Supp. 2d 978 (N.D. Cal. 2009) ................................................................................ 8, 16
`
`Schreiber Distrib. Co. v. Serv-Well Furniture Co.,
`806 F.2d 1393 (9th Cir. 1986) .................................................................................................. 7
`
`Shabaz v. Polo Ralph Lauren Corp.,
`586 F. Supp. 2d 1205 (C.D. Cal. 2008)................................................................................... 16
`
`SmileCare Dental Grp. v. Delta Dental Plan of Cal., Inc.,
`88 F.3d 780 (9th Cir. 1996) ....................................................................................................... 6
`
`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
`
`- vi -
`
`SIE’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION
`TO DISMISS AND STRIKE 3:21-CV-09054-LB
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-09054-LB Document 24 Filed 02/22/22 Page 8 of 35
`
`Smith v. City of Jackson,
`544 U.S. 228 (2005) ................................................................................................................ 14
`
`Solomon v. Fordham Univ.,
`No. 18 Civ. 4615 (ER), 2020 WL 1272617 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 17, 2020) .................................... 8
`
`Steckman v. Hart Brewing,
`143 F.3d 1293 (9th Cir. 1998) ................................................................................................. 10
`
`Suarez v. Bank of Am. Corp.,
`No. 18-CV-01202-MEJ, 2018 WL 3659302 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 2, 2018) .................................. 24
`
`Summit Tech., Inc. v. High-Line Med. Instruments Co.,
`922 F. Supp. 299 (C.D. Cal. 1996) ........................................................................................... 7
`
`Suzuki v. State Univ. of New York Coll. at Old Westbury,
`No. 08-CV-4569 (TCP), 2013 WL 2898135 (E.D.N.Y. June 13, 2013) .................................. 9
`
`Telesaurus VPC, LLC v. Power,
`623 F.3d 998 (9th Cir. 2010) ..................................................................................................... 7
`
`Tietsworth v. Sears,
`720 F. Supp. 2d 1123 (N.D. Cal. 2010) .................................................................................... 8
`
`Trinh v. JP Morgan Chase & Co.,
`No. 07-CV-1666 W(WMC), 2008 WL 1860161 (S.D. Cal. April 22, 2008) ........................ 11
`
`Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo,
`577 U.S. 442 (2016) ................................................................................................................ 21
`
`Unger v. City of Mentor,
`387 F. App’x 589 (6th Cir. 2010) ............................................................................................. 8
`
`Verdone v. Am. Greenfuels, LLC
`No. 3:16-CV-01271 (VAB), 2017 WL 3668596 (D. Conn. Aug. 24, 2017) ............................ 9
`
`Viana v. FedEx Corp. Servs., Inc.,
`728 F. App'x 642 (9th Cir. 2018) ............................................................................................ 16
`
`Wade v. Morton Bldgs., Inc.,
`No. 09-1225, 2010 WL 378508 (C.D. Ill. Jan. 27, 2010) ................................................... 9, 12
`
`Wagner v. Taylor,
`836 F.2d 578 (D.C. Cir. 1987) ................................................................................................ 18
`
`Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes,
`564 U.S. 338 (2011) .......................................................................................................... 19, 20
`
`Wang v. Gov’t Employees Ins.,
`2016 WL 11469653 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2016) ........................................................................ 9
`
`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
`
`- vii -
`
`SIE’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION
`TO DISMISS AND STRIKE 3:21-CV-09054-LB
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-09054-LB Document 24 Filed 02/22/22 Page 9 of 35
`
`Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Atonio,
`490 U.S. 642 (1989) ................................................................................................................ 14
`
`Watson v. Fort Worth Bank & Trust,
`487 U.S. 977 (1988) ................................................................................................................ 14
`
`Werst v. Sarar USA Inc.,
`No. 17-CV-2181 (VSB), 2018 WL 1399343 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 16, 2018) .................................. 9
`
`Wesson v. Staples the Off. Superstore, LLC
`68 Cal. App. 5th 746, reh’g denied (Sept. 27, 2021), review denied (Dec. 22,
`2021) ....................................................................................................................................... 23
`
`W. Mining Council v. Watt,
`643 F.2d 618 (9th Cir. 1981) cert denied, 454 U.S. 1031 (1981) ............................................. 7
`
`Whiteway v. FedEx Kinko’s Off. & Print Svcs.,
`No. C 05-2320 SBA, 2006 WL 2642528 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 14, 2006) ..................................... 17
`
`ZB, N.A. v. Superior Court,
`8 Cal. 5th 175 (2019) .............................................................................................................. 22
`
`Statutes and Regulations
`
`28 U.S.C. § 2201 ............................................................................................................................. 3
`
`29 C.F.R. § 1620.13(e) .................................................................................................................... 9
`
`29 U.S.C. § 216(b) ........................................................................................................................ 11
`
`42 U.S.C. § 2000e–2(k) ................................................................................................................ 14
`
`2 Cal. Code Regs. § 11023(a)(2) ................................................................................................... 15
`
`Cal. Lab. Code §§ 201-203 ....................................................................................................... 3, 16
`
`Cal. Lab. Code §§ 201-204 ........................................................................................................... 16
`
`Cal. Lab. Code § 232.5.............................................................................................................. 3, 24
`
`Cal. Lab. Code § 1102.5............................................................................................................ 3, 24
`
`Cal. Lab. Code § 1197.5.......................................................................................................... 12, 19
`
`Cal. Labor Code § 2699 ................................................................................................................ 22
`
`California Equal Pay Act ....................................................................................................... passim
`
`Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) ......................................................................................... 3, 8, 11
`
`Federal Equal Pay Act ............................................................................................................ passim
`SIE’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION
`TO DISMISS AND STRIKE 3:21-CV-09054-LB
`
`- viii -
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-09054-LB Document 24 Filed 02/22/22 Page 10 of 35
`
`FEHA ..................................................................................................................................... passim
`
`Private Attorneys General Act ........................................................................................ 2, 3, 22, 23
`
`Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”) ........................................................................................ 2, 3, 22
`
`Other Authorities
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) ....................................................................................................................... 24
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) ............................................................................................................... 1, 6
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f) .................................................................................................................... 1, 7
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 .................................................................................................................. passim
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) ..................................................................................................................... 17
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b) .................................................................................................................... 17
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) ................................................................................................................ 21
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(d)(1)(D) .......................................................................................................... 16
`
`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
`
`- ix -
`
`SIE’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION
`TO DISMISS AND STRIKE 3:21-CV-09054-LB
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-09054-LB Document 24 Filed 02/22/22 Page 11 of 35
`
`I.
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS
`TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD:
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on April 14, 2022 at 9:30 a.m. in Courtroom B, on the 15th
`Floor of the above-titled Court, located at 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94102,
`Defendant Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC (“SIE”) will move the Court for an Order
`dismissing and striking claims alleged against SIE in Plaintiff Emma Majo’s (“Plaintiff’s”) First
`Amended Complaint (“FAC”) on the grounds that Plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which
`relief can be granted pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), or that Plaintiff’s
`claims should be stricken pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) on the grounds
`Plaintiff failed to allege facts sufficient to demonstrate a class or collective action is appropriate.
`This Motion is based upon this Notice of Motion, the accompanying Memorandum of Points and
`Authorities, the complete pleadings and records on file herein, and such other evidence and
`arguments as may be presented at the hearing on this Motion.
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`INTRODUCTION
`In her First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), Plaintiff Emma Majo tries mightily to
`transform a handful of individualized complaints about her failure to earn a promotion into a
`massive collective and class action lawsuit on behalf of all women employed by SIE nationwide
`and within the state of California. Yet despite the sweeping breadth of her lawsuit, the allegations
`in which SIE categorically denies, she fails to plead facts to support either her individual claims
`or the claims of the broad-based classes of women she seeks to represent. Plaintiff seeks to bring
`collective and class actions under the Federal and California Equal Pay Acts (“EPAs”), but
`alleges no facts about her own work, let alone the work of the class members she seeks to
`represent or any alleged male comparators who she claims performed equal or substantially
`similar work and were paid more. She alleges classwide claims of disparate treatment and
`disparate impact discrimination, but fails to identify a single policy, practice or procedure at SIE
`that allegedly formed the basis of any widespread intentional discrimination or had a
`discriminatory impact on women. Her widespread claims of harassment are based solely on
`SIE’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION
`TO DISMISS AND STRIKE 3:21-CV-09054-
`LB
`
`- 1 -
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-09054-LB Document 24 Filed 02/22/22 Page 12 of 35
`
`unactionable allegations of run-of-the-mill personnel activity. And she clams SIE failed to
`prevent discrimination and harassment, but provides no facts suggesting SIE knew or should have
`known about the alleged conduct about which she complains. She further brings wage and hour
`claims and claims under California’s Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) and Unfair
`Competition (“UCL”) law, but they are entirely derivative of her other claims and therefore fail
`for all the same reasons.
`Not only does Plaintiff fail to allege sufficient facts to support her asserted claims, but she
`also fails to allege a class, collective or representative action is procedurally proper. To the
`contrary, Plaintiff’s allegations suggest precisely the opposite, as they are highly individualized
`and based solely on her personal circumstances. She fails to allege any facts supporting the notion
`that common evidence can prove the asserted claims of the class, or that the purported members
`of the collective action she seeks to represent are similarly situated. She also fails to articulate
`how the alleged class, collective and representative actions she seeks to bring are remotely
`manageable. Moreover, because she seeks to represent the very managers she accuses of
`discrimination and harassment, she cannot possibly meet the requirements of adequacy and
`typicality due to irreconcilable conflicts of interest.
`Plaintiff’s purely individual claims are similarly deficient. Like her class claims, they are
`based solely on conclusory allegations or recitations of legal elements without any factual
`support. Her claims for intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress are preempted by
`California’s Worker’s Compensation statute and are otherwise based on unactionable personnel
`activity or purported duties SIE did not owe to her. And while she claims the termination of her
`employment due to a reduction in force was retaliatory, she fails to sufficiently plead she was the
`victim of unlawful retaliation.
` Plaintiff cannot bring thirteen separate legal claims on behalf of herself, nor a national
`collective action or statewide class action lawsuit, without pleading facts to support her
`allegations. She has failed to plead such facts here (which SIE contends do not exist). For all of
`these reasons and as explained more fully below, the Court should grant SIE’s Motion to Dismiss
`and Motion to Strike.
`
`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
`
`- 2 -
`
`SIE’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION
`TO DISMISS AND STRIKE 3:21-CV-09054-LB
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-09054-LB Document 24 Filed 02/22/22 Page 13 of 35
`
`II.
`
`ISSUES TO BE DECIDED
`The issues to be decided are: (1) Whether the Court should dismiss Plaintiff’s putative
`collective Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) EPA claim because the FAC fails to allege sufficient
`facts to sustain the claim, and strike collective class allegations because she cannot meet
`collective action procedural requirements; (2) Whether the Court should dismiss Plaintiff’s
`putative Rule 23 class claims because the FAC fails to allege sufficient facts to sustain those
`claims, and strike Rule 23 class allegations because she fails to allege facts showing she can meet
`the procedural requirements of Rule 23; (4) Whether the Court should dismiss Plaintiff’s
`derivative UCL and PAGA claims because Plaintiff fails to allege sufficient facts to sustain the
`predicate claims, and strike Plaintiff’s PAGA claim because she fails to allege facts sufficient to
`demonstrate the claim is manageable; and (5) Whether the Court should dismiss Plaintiff’s
`individual claims because the FAC fails to allege sufficient facts to sustain those claims.
`III.
`PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
`Plaintiff filed this action on