Carolyn Kennard v. Cherry Hill Programs, Inc.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Southern District of California partially granted and partially denied Defendant Cherry Hill Programs, Inc.’s motion to dismiss Carolyn Kennard’s second amended wage-and-hour complaint. The court dismissed the sick-pay claim with leave to amend but allowed claims concerning cell-phone reimbursement, wage statements, waiting-time penalties, and other wage-and-hour violations to proceed. The court also allowed amendment to add an individual plaintiff but denied leave to add a FEHA claim without more specific factual allegations.

Holdings

1. Neither Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 nor Rule 12 bars pleading based on information and belief, and Defendant failed to identify authority requiring a complaint to designate which allegations were based on personal knowledge and which were based on information and belief.
2. The second amended complaint generally contained enough factual matter to state plausible claims and provided fair notice of the claims and their factual bases.
3. The complaint plausibly alleged a claim for reimbursement of personal-cell-phone expenses under California Labor Code section 2802(a).
4. The sick-pay claim was inadequately pleaded and was dismissed with leave to amend.
5. The wage-statement and waiting-time claims were sufficiently alleged and were not subject to dismissal merely because Defendant characterized them as derivative claims.
6. Plaintiff was granted leave to amend to name Deaune Boyd as an individual plaintiff because futility was not clear.
7. Leave to add the proposed FEHA claim was denied because the proposed claim contained insufficient factual allegations and relied on conclusory assertions.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the second amended complaint should be dismissed because it relied in part on allegations made on information and belief.
2. Whether the second amended complaint pleaded sufficient nonconclusory facts to state plausible wage-and-hour claims.
3. Whether the cell-phone-expense claim stated a plausible claim under California Labor Code section 2802(a).
4. Whether the sick-pay claim was adequately pleaded.
5. Whether the wage-statement and waiting-time claims were inadequately pleaded or improperly derivative of other claims.
6. Whether Plaintiff should receive leave to amend to add Deaune Boyd as an individual plaintiff and to add a FEHA discrimination and retaliation claim.

Disposition

other