Louis

Louis v. McCormick & Schmick Restaurant Corp.

Good Law
460 F. Supp. 2d 1153·2006 WL 3087112·2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 81729
United States District Court, Central District of CaliforniaOctober 18, 2006CV 06 3752 MMM(SSX)California5,961 words

Opinion

Opinion

Morrow, J.

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTIONS TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

On March 15, 2006, plaintiff Nancy Louie filed a complaint in Los Angeles Superior Court against her former employer, McCormick & Schmick. Louie sued on her own behalf and on behalf of all individuals similarly situated. McCormick & Schmick removed the action to this court on June 15, 2006, invoking jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, Pub.L. No. 109-2, § 4 (a), 119 Stat. 9 (codified in relevant part at 28 U.S.C. 1332(d)(2)).

On July 3, 2006, plaintiff filed a first amended complaint asserting three causes of action. The first claim alleges that defendant’s tip-sharing arrangement, in which Louie was required to participate as a former employee, violates California Labor Code § 351 because it mandates that servers share tips with bartenders who do not provide direct table service to patrons. The second and third claims assert violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”), California Business & Professions Code §§ 17200 et seq., and the Labor Code Private Attorney General Act, California Labor Code §§ 2698 et seq. Both claims are based on McCormick & Schmick’s purported…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.