In last Thursday’s opposition, two former AT&T Mobility Services LLC California call center employees rebutted the mobile carrier’s dismissal arguments. Their wage claims meet the applicable pleading standard they arguetasking for leave to amend should the court find that their claims lack evidentiary support.
The operative pleading, the plaintiffs’ third amended complaint, states that AT&T failed to pay all overtime wages, provide rest periods, provide accurate wage statements, and pay all wages due at separation in violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law, the Private Attorneys General Act, and the California Labor Code Sections 512 and 226.7 and Wage Order 4.
The opposition explains the lawsuit’s relatively complex procedural history, including its two year stay during the pendency of a case the state’s high court decided in July. In addition, it explains that other labor cases against AT&T have complicated the plaintiffs’ path forward.
“Defendant is playing fast and loose with the Courts,” the plaintiffs argue, referring to action taken by AT&T, including its “efforts to settle all of the class and PAGA claims in this case without inclusion of the plaintiffs,” or the retail store employee plaintiffs in another wage and hour case. In that case, an Eastern District of California Court last week denied AT&T’s motion to dismiss claims for failure to pay due wages and pay meal and rest period wages at the appropriate rate.
The plaintiffs further argue that the complaint satisfies the applicable pleading standard, and the court need not consider the more stringent one AT&T advocates for. The filing asserts that the defendant’s answer acknowledges that the factual allegations giving rise to the plaintiffs’ grievances exist. “[N]otwithstanding the extensive briefing and pre-certification discovery related to the factual allegations in this case, Defendant’s Motion is ludicrous given its Answer to the SAC, which made the same or similar substantive allegations as the TAC,” the opposition says.
The filing also addresses AT&T’s Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) motion to strike one plaintiff’s rest period class claims, calling it baseless. The opposition contends that the plaintiff is not estopped from pleading or moving for class certification and that the California Supreme Court is currently reviewing a case that will inform the court’s decision. To this end, the plaintiffs predict that the high court’s decision will fall in the plaintiffs’ favor, thereby mandating that the motion to strike be denied.
The plaintiffs are represented by Myers Law Group A.P.C. and AT&T by Paul Hastings LLP.
