Not a Lexis+ subscriber? Try it out for free.

Experience a New Era in Legal Research with Free Access to Lexis+

Ortiz v. CVS Caremark Corp.

United States District Court for the Northern District of California

March 18, 2014, Decided; March 19, 2014, Filed

No. C -12-05859 EDL



Plaintiffs filed this case as a putative class action seeking damages for unpaid off-the-clock work for inter-store merchandise deliveries and mileage  [*2] reimbursement under California labor statutes. Plaintiffs also brought a claim based on California's Private Attorney General Act ("PAGA"), Cal. Labor Code section 2699(a). The Court previously denied Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification, but Plaintiffs wish to proceed with a representative action under PAGA on behalf of themselves and other aggrieved employees who performed such inter-store transfers. Defendants have moved to strike the PAGA claim. For the reasons stated at the hearing and in this Order, Defendants' Motion to Strike is granted.

Legal Standard

A court may "strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter." Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 12(f). The purposes of a Rule 12(f) motion is to avoid spending time and money litigating spurious issues. See Fantasy, Inc. v. Fogerty, 984 F.2d 1524, 1527 (9th Cir.1993), rev'd on other grounds, 510 U.S. 517, 114 S. Ct. 1023, 127 L. Ed. 2d 455 (1994).


Under PAGA, an "aggrieved employee" may bring a civil action personally and on behalf of other current or former employees to recover civil penalties for Labor Code violations. See Cal. Lab. Code, § 2699(a). Of the civil penalties recovered, seventy-five percent  [*3] goes to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency, with the remainder to the "aggrieved employees." Id. § 2699(i).

Here, Plaintiffs allege that they brought the PAGA claim on behalf of themselves and all other current or former employees of Defendants based on alleged violations of the Labor Code. FAC ¶ 92. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants failed to pay at least minimum wage for all hours worked in violation of Labor Code sections 1194, 1198; failed to pay overtime in violation of Labor Code sections 510, 1194, 1198; failed to provide meal periods in violation of Labor Code section 22, 226.7, 512; failed to provide rest periods in violation of Labor Codes section 226.7; failed to indemnify Plaintiffs for business related expenses in violation of Labor Code section 2802; failed to pay Plaintiffs twice each calendar month on designated paydays for all wages earned in violation of Labor Code section 204; failed to pay Plaintiffs who have terminated or will terminate their employment with Defendants prior to entry of judgment in this case all wages owed to them at termination in violation of Labor Code sections 201, 202; and failed to furnish accurate, itemized wage statements in violation  [*4] of Labor Code section 226(a). FAC ¶ 94. Based on these violations, Plaintiffs allege that they are entitled to civil penalties under PAGA. FAC ¶ 96.

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36833 *; 2014 WL 1117614

ELIZABETH ORTIZ, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CVS CAREMARK CORPORATION, et al., Defendants.

Prior History: Ortiz v. CVS Caremark Corp., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 197438 (N.D. Cal., Oct. 11, 2013)


mileage, reimbursement, unmanageable, clock, off-the-clock, aggrieved, diversity