Stiefel

Stiefel v. Bechtel Corp.

Good Law

497 F. Supp. 2d 1153·2007 WL 2045498·2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53485

United States District Court, Southern District of CaliforniaJuly 13, 200706 CV 1414 H WMCCalifornia3,144 words

Opinion

Huff, J.

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

On May 29, 2007, defendant Bechtel Corporation (“Defendant”) filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff James Richard Stiefel’s (Plaintiff) second amended complaint (“SAC”). (Doc. Nos. 44-45.) On July 2, 2007, Plaintiff filed an opposition to Defendant’s motion to dismiss. (Doc. No. 49.) On July 6, 2007, Defendant filed a reply. (Doc. No. 50.)

The Court exercises its discretion to decide this motion on the papers, without oral argument, pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1(d)(1). For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS WITH PREJUDICE Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiffs claims pursuant to sections 6310 and 6311 of California’s Labor Code, as those claims are barred by the federal enclave doctrine.

Background

Plaintiff began working for Defendant at the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (“SONGS”) on or about May 1, 2004 in the facilities department. (SAC ¶ 8.) On or about March 6, 2006, Defendant laid off Plaintiff. (Id. ¶ 29.) Defendant performs services at SONGS pursuant to a contract it has with Southern California Edison. (Id. ¶ 4.)

In June 2006, Plaintiff filed a complaint in San Diego County Superior…

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.