Tomlinson

Tomlinson v. Indymac Bank, F.S.B.

Good Law

359 F. Supp. 2d 891·2005 WL 469291·2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3576

United States District Court, Central District of CaliforniaFebruary 18, 2005SACV 04-294 JVSCalifornia3,061 words

Opinion

Selna, J.

Order re Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings re (1) Remedies Under § 17200, and (2) Statute of Limitations

Defendants Indymac Bank, F.S.B. and Indymac Resources, Inc. (collectively, “In- dymac”) have filed the instant motion for judgment on the pleadings regarding the remedies available under California’s Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq. (“UCL”), and the applicable statute of limitations for Plaintiffs’ claim for penalties under Cal.Civ. Proc.Code § 226.7 (“Section 226.7”).

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs have alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (“FLSA”) and the UCL. The Complaint seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, compensation for unlawfully withheld wages, meal and rest break violations, and statutory penalties. Complaint, ¶ 2.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(c) provides that “[a]fter the pleadings are closed but within such time as not to delay the trial, any party may move for judgment on the pleadings.” Judgment on the pleadings is “properly granted when, taking all the allegations in the pleadings as true, the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Owens v. Kaiser Found.…

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.