UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case - No. CV 09-3987 DSF (MANx)
Date - 8/12/09
Title - Claire Headley v. Church of Scientology International, et al.
Debra Plato
Deputy Clerk
Not Present
Court Reporter
Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Not Present
Attorneys Present for Defendants: Not Present
(In Chambers) Order GRANTING in Part and DENYING in Part
Proceedings: Defendant Church of Scientology International’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), or, in the Alternative, For a More Definite Statement Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(e) (Docket No. 8), GRANTING in Part and DENYING in Part Defendant Religious Technology Center’s Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), or, in the Alternative, For a More Definite Statement Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(e) (Docket No. 5), and GRANTING in Part and DENYING in Part Motion to Strike Portions of Second Amended Complaint (Docket Nos. 7, 10)
Introduction
Before the Court is Defendant Church of Scientology International’s (“CSI”) Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), or, in the Alternative, For a More Definite Statement Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(e) and Defendant Religious Technology Center’s (“RTC”) Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), or, in the Alternative, For a More Definite Statement Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(e). Also before the court is CSI’s Motion to Strike Portions of Second Amended Complaint. RTC joins in the Motion to Strike. For the following reasons, the Court: (1) GRANTS in Part and DENIES in Part CSI’s Motion to Dismiss or For a More Definite Statement; (2) GRANTS in Part and DENIES in Part RTC’s Motion to Dismiss or For a More Definite Statement; (3) GRANTS in Part and DENIES in Part the Motion to Strike.
Background
I. BACKGROUND
On January 20, 2009, Plaintiff Claire Headley filed this action against CSI and
RTC (collectively “Defendants”). Headley filed a Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) on May 19, 2009. She was employed by Defendants from 1991 to January 2005. (SAC ¶ 6.) Headley claims that Defendants forced her to work for below minimum wage and denied overtime pay. (Id. ¶ 19.) Headley alleges: (1) restitution of wages under California Business and Professions Code §§ 17200, et seq.; (2) unfair business practices under § 17200; and (3) violations of California and federal prohibitions against forced labor.