Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 CAMERON YERIGAN, Case No. 25-cv-0586-BAS-DEB 13 Plaintiff, ORDER REQUIRING 14 v. SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO 15 UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., DISMISS 16 Defendant. 17 18 Presently before the Court is Defendant United Parcel Service, Inc.’s (“UPS”) 19 motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s first amended complaint. (ECF No. 20.) Plaintiff Cameron 20 Yerigan is self-represented. 21 Defendant moves to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) or, in 22 the alternative, for a more definite statement under Rule 12(e). (Mot. 3:7–4:23, ECF No. 23 20.) Defendant’s six-page motion contends that Plaintiff’s claims are insufficiently clear 24 to identify. But the Court has identified several allegations in the complaint. 25 To avoid duplicative motion practice and in the interest of justice, the Court permits 26 Defendant to file a supplemental brief in support of its motion to dismiss in accordance 27 with this Order. 28 1 I. BACKGROUND 2 A. Procedural Background 3 Plaintiff filed a form complaint against Defendant in San Diego Superior Court. 4 (Form Complaint at 33–34, ECF No. 1-4.) Defendant removed this action pursuant to 28 5 U.S.C. § 1332 diversity jurisdiction. (Notice of Removal, ECF No. 1.)1 Defendant then 6 filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, or in the alternative, a motion for a 7 more definite statement. (ECF No. 5.) Plaintiff did not oppose, and the Court ordered 8 Plaintiff to show cause for failure to file an opposition. (ECF No. 7.) The motion was then 9 fully briefed. (ECF Nos. 8, 9.) 10 The Court granted Defendant’s motion for a more definite statement under Rule 11 12(e), and the Court gave Plaintiff a deadline by which to file a first amended complaint. 12 (ECF No. 11.) The Court warned Plaintiff that if he does not file a first amended complaint 13 by the deadline, the Court would dismiss the action without prejudice. (Id.) 14 Plaintiff’s deadline passed, and he did not file a first amended complaint; therefore, 15 the Court dismissed the action without prejudice. (ECF No. 12.) Several days later, Plaintiff 16 filed a letter to reopen the case. (ECF No. 14.) The Court construed the letter as a motion 17 to reopen the case, and the Court reopened the case accordingly. (ECF No. 17.) The Court 18 set a new deadline for Plaintiff to file a first amended complaint. (Id.) 19 Soon after, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint. (ECF No. 18.) Plaintiff also 20 moved for leave to file electronically (ECF No. 19), which the Court granted (ECF No. 21 22). 22 Defendant then filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. (ECF No. 20.) 23 Plaintiff again failed to timely oppose; the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause for failure 24 to respond. (ECF No. 23.) Plaintiff filed a letter in response to the Court’s order, which the 25 Court construed as an opposition. (ECF No. 24.) Defendant did not file a reply. 26 27 1 Plaintiff seeks more than $75,000 in damages; Plaintiff is a California citizen; and UPS is a 28 1 B. Factual Background 2 Plaintiff’s complaint alleges the following factual narrative. (First Am. Compl., 3 ECF. No. 18.) Mr. Yerigan worked at UPS as a driver in job classification 22-4, based out 4 of the San Diego facility. (Id. at 5.) Mr. Yerigan was a member of Teamsters Union Local 5 542. (Id.) 6 Pay Grievance (August 2022) 7 In August 2022, Mr. Yerigan filed a grievance after UPS moved his driving position 8 and reduced his hourly pay from $27.50 to $20.50 without red-circling his pay as he alleges 9 was required under the Collective Bargaining Agreement (“CBA”)—specifically Article 10 41 of the CBA. (Id. at 1.) He contends this pay reduction constituted a contract violation, 11 entitling him to $60,000 in base damages, with a statutory penalty of three times that 12 amount ($180,000) under wage theft provisions. (Id.) UPS allegedly told Mr. Yerigan the 13 problem would be fixed but never corrected it. (Id.) 14 Windshield Incident (November 2022) 15 In November 2022, Mr. Yerigan’s windshield was smashed in the UPS company 16 parking lot. (Id.) The property manager for the building filed a police report. (Id.) Mr. 17 Yerigan alleges UPS was liable for the damage under the terms of the union contract, and 18 that the company’s only response was to install cameras outside the building. (Id.) Mr. 19 Yerigan paid around $329.00 out of pocket for the repair. (Id.) Mr. Yerigan alleges this 20 incident was connected to his pay grievance. (Id.) 21 March 1, 2023 — Meeting with Mr. Sanders 22 Given that UPS had still not addressed the pay grievance, Mr. Yerigan went to 23 supervisor Josh Sanders’ office on March 1, 2023, to discuss the ongoing pay correction 24 issue and the windshield incident. (Id.) Mr. Sanders allegedly became enraged, kicked Mr. 25 Yerigan out of his office, and physically blocked the doorway, forcing Mr. Yerigan to ask 26 to be let through. (Id.) A coworker named Andy York was present and witnessed the 27 incident. (Id.) Mr. Yerigan alleges Mr. Sanders then made false accusations against him. 28 (Id.) 1 After the meeting, Mr. Yerigan resumed his normal work duties, completing a pre- 2 trip inspection on his vehicle. (Id.) As Mr. Yerigan was leaving the building, Mr. Sanders 3 stopped him and ordered him back to the office to receive a written warning letter. (Id. at 4 2.) Mr. Yerigan complied. (Id.) At that point, Mr. Yerigan asked for a union representative, 5 which Mr. Sanders denied—a right Mr. Yerigan contends he was entitled to under Article 6 4 of the CBA and the Weingarten doctrine. (Id.) In the office, manager Stephanie was also 7 present. (Id.) Mr. Sanders proceeded to read Mr. Yerigan the company’s anti-harassment 8 policy, apparently assuming the position that it was Mr. Yerigan who had harassed Mr. 9 Sanders—a characterization Mr. Yerigan disputes. (Id.) Mr. Yerigan was then sent home 10 without pay. (Id.) He did not return to work for several days, during which time he was 11 ill—vomiting due to the stress of the situation—and obtained a doctor’s note excusing him 12 for five days. (Id.) 13 March 9, 2023 — Follow-Up Meeting 14 Mr. Sanders texted Mr. Yerigan and asked him to come in on March 9, 2023, to 15 discuss the March 1 incident. (Id.) Mr. Yerigan complied. (Id.) A security guard named 16 Rick was also present. (Id.) The meeting covered the windshield incident, parking lot 17 safety, and the ongoing pay issues. (Id.) Mr. Yerigan alleges nothing was resolved at this 18 meeting either, and he was again sent home without pay. No discipline was formally issued 19 at this meeting. (Id.) 20 HR Communication and Ethics Complaint 21 Following the March 9 meeting, Mr. Yerigan texted HR representative Abby to 22 report his concerns about the windshield, the pay issues, and the retaliation he felt he was 23 experiencing. (Id.) He also filed a retaliation claim under Article 37 of the CBA at this 24 time. (Id.) Abby advised him to file an ethics point complaint through a third-party 25 reporting system. Mr. Yerigan did so. (Id.) He alleges that this ethics complaint is what 26 prompted Mr. Sanders to escalate the discipline from a written warning to a full 27 discharge—in other words, that the filing of the ethics complaint was the direct cause of 28 his termination. (Id.) 1 Termination (March 14, 2023) 2 On March 14, 2023, Mr. Yerigan returned to work as normal. With security guard 3 Rick and Mr. Sanders present, Mr. Yerigan was called into a meeting at which he was 4 discharged. (Id.) He characterizes this as a wrongful and unlawful discharge in violation of 5 the CBA. He was not paid out on the day of termination. (Id.) 6 Grievance Filing Regarding Disciplinary Procedure (March 29, 2023) 7 Mr. Yerigan filed Grievance No. 46121 with Teamsters Local 542 on March 29, 8 2023, citing a violation of Article 28, Section 2 of the CBA. (Id.) He contended that UPS 9 failed to follow the 10-day rule for disciplinary action—the incident occurred March 1, an 10 investigation meeting was held March 9, but he was not discharged until March 14, which 11 he argues exceeded the contractual timeframe and rendered the disciplinary action waived 12 under the CBA. (Id.) 13 Damages 14 Mr. Yerigan seeks the following relief: back pay and lost wages calculated at three 15 times the base contract violation amount (approximately $180,000 for the pay reduction 16 alone); lost pension benefits for up to five years; reimbursement of medical insurance costs 17 during the period of unemployment; the $329.00 windshield repair cost; and general make- 18 whole relief for all losses suffered as a result of the alleged wrongful discharge and contract 19 violations. (Id. at 3–4.) 20 II. LEGAL STANDARD 21 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires “a short and plain statement of the 22 claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. A Rule 12(b)(6) 23 motion tests that standard by seeking dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which relief 24 can be granted. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12. 25 To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain more than “labels and 26 conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action.” Bell Atl. Corp. 27 v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). While legal conclusions may provide the framework 28 of a complaint, “they must be supported by factual allegations.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 1 662, 679 (2009). The plaintiff must plead “factual content that allows the court to draw the 2 reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged”—in other 3 words, enough to render the claim plausible. Id. at 678 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). 4 In ruling on a motion to dismiss, the court accepts the complaint’s factual allegations 5 as true and construes the pleadings in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. See 6 Manzarek v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 519 F.3d 1025, 1031 (9th Cir. 2008). The 7 court may not look beyond the complaint. See United States v. Ritchie, 342 F.3d 903, 907 8 (9th Cir. 2003). 9 III. ANALYSIS 10 A court liberally construes the filings of a self-represented plaintiff and affords the 11 plaintiff the benefit of any reasonable doubt. See Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th 12 Cir. 2010). Further, “a pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less 13 stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Florer v. Congregation 14 Pidyon Shevuyim, N.A., 639 F.3d 916, 923 n.4 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing Erickson v. Pardus, 15 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007)). 16 Although Plaintiff’s complaint does not identify specific causes of action, it contains 17 detailed factual allegations from which the Court can discern the following potential 18 claims. Construing the complaint liberally and out of an abundance of caution, the Court 19 identifies the following causes of action: 20 1. Breach of Collective Bargaining Agreement, Section 301 of the Labor 21 Management Relations Act (LMRA); specifically, Articles 4, 17, 28, 37, 41. 22 2. Unpaid Wages under the California Labor Code. 23 3. Negligence, Premises Liability under California Law. 24 Applying the liberal pleading standard afforded to self-represented plaintiffs, the 25 Court is inclined to allow this action to proceed. 26 27 28 1 CONCLUSION 2 Accordingly, Defendant shall file a supplemental brief to the motion to dismiss on 3 before April 29, 2026. Should Plaintiff wish to respond to Defendant’s supplemental 4 ||brief, he must do so on or before May 13, 2026. And if Defendant chooses to reply, that 5 || brief will be due on May 20, 2026. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 ~ 8 || DATED: April 15, 2026 (yatta Bahar □□ 9 H n. Cynthia Bashant, Chief Judge United States District Court 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28