Clark v. VIP PetCare, LLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JULIE KAY CLARK, Case No. 22-cv-08935-VC

Plaintiff,

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

v. DISMISS

VIP PETCARE, LLC, Re: Dkt. No. 27 Defendant.

This order assumes the reader is familiar with the case. California wage and hour laws do not apply to people who work entirely in another state, even if they work for a California company. Cotter v. Lyft, Inc., 60 F. Supp. 3d 1059, 1061–64 (N.D. Cal. 2014). Clark’s contract provides that it “will be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the state of California.” FAC Ex. 1 § 8.04. But that provision means that California contract law controls the meaning of the contract. It does not, and cannot, extend California’s labor laws to Tennessee. Cotter, 60 F. Supp. 3d at 1064–66. Clark’s claims for violations of California Labor Code sections 226.8 and 1102.5 are therefore dismissed. Clark also alleges fraud and misrepresentations regarding her contract, which she frames as violations of California Civil Code sections 1709 and 1710. The federal rules require that a plaintiff alleging fraud “state with particularity…