George Huff v. City of Los Angeles

MEMORANDUM

On July 1, 2010, George Huff, Lendard Morris, Lorraine Soriano, Richard Single-tary, Randall Baker, James Butts, Riehard Irving, Annette Young, and Jose de Anda, Jr. (“Appellants”) filed their Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) in district court alleging that the City of Los Angeles (“the City”) had violated 29 U.S.C. §§ 207 (a) and 207(o) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) by failing to compensate them for integral and indispensable activities performed before or after regular work shifts: namely, donning and doffing their uniforms and safety equipment at work. The City moved to dismiss Appellants’ SAC, without leave to amend, on the ground that it failed to cure the defects of the First Amended Complaint, and, therefore, failed to state a claim under this court’s decision in Bamonte v. City of Mesa, 598 F.3d 1217 (9th Cir.2010). We affirm.

The district court did not err in dismissing Appellants’ claims under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). A dismissal for failure to state a claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) is reviewed de novo. “While a complaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss does not need detailed factual allegations ... a plaintiffs obligation to provide…