Lingle

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 Anthony Lingle, No. 2:22-cev-01471-KJM-JDP Plaintiff, ORDER AND RULE

B SCHEDULING ORDER

Centimark Corporation, et al., 1S Defendants. 16 Plaintiff Anthony Lingle asserts several wage and hour claims against his former employer, defendant Centimark Corporation, and he seeks to represent a class of similarly 19 situated workers. Centimark moves to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) and to strike under Rule 12(f). 20 As explained in this order, the court converts the motion to strike to a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). So construed, the motions are granted in part with leave to amend. 22 I. BACKGROUND At this stage, the court assumes the allegations in Lingle’s complaint are true. Ashcroft v. 24 Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). According to his complaint, Lingle worked as a laborer and 25 roofer for Centimark between 2019 and 2021. …