Accordingly, Plaintiff is barred from seeking penalties pursuant to Labor Code § 2699. See Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 340(a); Murphy, 40 Cal. 4th at 1107 (“[T]he Legislature certainly knows how to impose a penalty when it wants to, having established penalties in may Labor Code statutes by using the word “penalty.”) Because Plaintiff has no standing to seek Section 2699 PAGA penalties, the allegations and Prayer for such penalties (Prayer for Relief ¶ 12; Complaint ¶ 51) are precluded as a matter of law, and should be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

See Code Civ. Pro. § 340(a); Thomas v. Home Depot, USA, 527 F. Supp. 2d 1003, 1007 (N.D. Cal. 2007). Case 5:16-cv-01792-GHK-SP Document 13-1 Filed 08/26/16 Page 24 of 27 Page ID #:120 LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 501 W. Broadway Suite 900 San Diego, CA 92101.3577 619.232.0441 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 MEMORANDUM ISO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS 18. employee did not exhaust administrative remedies under PAGA and no claim for civil penalties could be sustained except through PAGA. Caliber Bodyworks, Inc. v. Superior Court, 134 Cal. App. 4th 365, 370, 383 (2005)

a)(2) ................................................................................................................ 3 Rule 12(b)(6) ................................................................................................... passim Case 5:16-cv-01792-GHK-SP Document 37-2 Filed 12/08/16 Page 6 of 33 Page ID #:472 LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 501 W. Broadway Suite 900 San Diego, CA 92101.3577 619.232.0441 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 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (CONTINUED) PAGE(S) Firmwide:144201159.4 050407.1106 vi. MPAs ISO MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT California Statutes California Code of Civil Procedure § 340 ........................................................................................................................ 18 § 338(a) .................................................................................................................... 19 § 340(a) .................................................................................................. 18, 20, 21, 22 California Labor Code § 201 .................................................................................................................... 3, 13 § 202 .................................................................................................................... 3, 13 § 203 ........................................................................................................................ 13 § 204 .................................................................................. 2, 3, 14, 18, 20, 22, 23, 25 § 210 .................................................................................................................. 20, 23 § 210(b) .................................................................................................................... 23 § 226 ......................................................................................

However, the statute of limitations under CIPA is one year. CAL. CIV. PRO. § 340; Montalti v. Catanzariti, 191 Cal. App. 3d 96, 98 (1987). Thus, it is speculative not only whether one or more calls was even made within the one year statute of limitations period for a claim under CIPA, but also whether any call was recorded in the applicable time period given that the SAC merely alleges phone calls were made to Li, Barnard, and Curtis sometime within the last four years.

However, the statute of limitations under CIPA is one year. CAL. C.C.P. § 340; Montalti v. Catanzariti, 191 Cal. App. 3d 96, 98 (1987). Thus, it is speculative not only whether one or more calls was even made within the one year statute of limitations period for a claim under CIPA, but also whether any call was recorded in the applicable time period given that the SAC merely alleges phone calls were made to Li, Barnard, and Curtis sometime within the last four years.

California Cases Murphy v. Kenneth Cole Productions, Inc., 40 Cal. 4th 1094 (2007) ........................................................................................... 20 Reynolds v. Bement, 36 Cal. 4th 1075 (2005) ..................................................................................... 20, 21 Thurman v. Bayshore, 203 Cal. App. 4th 1112 (2012) ................................................................................ 20 California Statutes California Business & Professions Code § 17200 et seq. ..................................................................................................... 3, 18 California Code of Civil Procedure § 340 ........................................................................................................................ 20 § 340(a) ........................................................................................................ 19, 20, 21 California Labor Code § 204 .......................................................................................................................... 1 § 1174(d) .................................................................................................................... 1 § 1197.1 ..................................................................................................................... 1 §§ 201 and 202 .................................................................................................... 3, 14 § 203 ........................................................................................................................ 14 §§ 204, 1174.5, and 1197.1 ..................................................................................... 22 § 226(a) ......................................................................................

[and] 2. Plaintiff’s purported First Cause of Action for Retaliation under Cal. Lab. Code § 1102.5(c) shall be and hereby is dismissed without leave to amend and with prejudice because the claim is time-barred pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. § 340(a), which provides for a one-year statute of limitations. IT IS SO ORDERED.

(citing Cal. Lab. Code § 226(e)); see also Elliot v. Spherion Pac. Work, LLC, 572 F. Supp. 2d 1169, 1179 (C.D. Cal. 2008), aff’d, 368 F. App’x 761 (9th Cir. 2010) (“one-year statute of limitations set forth in Cal. Code Civ. Proc. section 340 applies to Plaintiff's claims under [section 226] because she is seeking penalties.”) Thus, by not tailoring their class definition to account for the applicable statute of limitations, Plaintiffs have included individuals who do not have timely claims under Section 226.

This claim, which seeks statutory penalties, is subject to a one-year statute of limitations. Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. § 340(a); Murphy v. Kenneth Cole Productions, Inc., 40 Cal.4th 1094, 1108 (2007); Thomas v. Home Case 4:15-cv-04648-JSW Document 70-5 Filed 10/28/16 Page 5 of 7 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 [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (PLAINTIFF CANADAY) CASE NO. CV 15-cv-04648-JSW -5- Depot USA, Inc., 527 F. Supp. 2d 1003, 1007 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 27, 2007).

Section 1102.5(f) provides for a $10,000 penalty for each violation of the statute. Accordingly, any claim for violation of this section is “an action upon a statute for penalty” and, therefore, governed by Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 340(a), which provides for a one-year statute of limitations. For this reason, several courts have applied a one-year statute of limitations to Section 1102.5 claims.