Armendariz v. Metropolitan Transportation Commission CA1/1

Filed 7/14/14 Armendariz v. Metropolitan Transportation Commission CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

THOMAS ARMENDARIZ et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, A138717 v. METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION (Alameda County COMMISSION et al., Super. Ct. No. HG12650902) Defendants and Respondents.

Plaintiffs Thomas Armendariz and Elmer Banaag, individually and on behalf of their coworkers, sued defendant the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) alleging violation of prevailing wage laws. The trial court sustained MTC’s demurrer without leave to amend. On appeal, plaintiffs do not challenge the court’s legal findings with respect to the demurrer, claiming solely that the court abused its discretion in denying leave to amend. We affirm. FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY In March 2011, plaintiffs each filed a complaint against Case Systems, Inc. (Case) for failure to pay prevailing wage rates with respect to public works contract entered into between Case and MTC. On August 24, 2012, the trial court in the lawsuit against Case filed its decision, concluding plaintiffs had failed to introduce competent evidence that the wage rate paid was incorrect.1

1 This ruling has been appealed in the related case of Banaag et al. v. Case Systems, Inc. (Appeal No. A136841). 1

On October 5, 2012, plaintiffs filed the instant class action lawsuit against MTC, asserting a claim for negligent breach of statutory duty. They alleged they had worked for a private contractor from November 1999 until March 2010 on a public works project for which MTC was the awarding body. They claimed they had not been paid the prevailing wage for their work, in contravention of relevant Labor Code provisions. They alleged they first learned MTC had not required the contractor to submit certified payroll records or reports on July 2, 2012, during the testimony in the trial against their employer. They subsequently presented a written claim to MTC under the Government Tort Claims Act (Gov. Code, § 900 et seq.) on July 26, 2012, asserting the agency had negligently breached its statutory duty to require the contractor to submit such records. Their claim was reportedly returned as untimely on September 10, 2012. On November 15, 2012, MTC filed a demurrer asserting, among other grounds, that it was not subject to liability for failure to carry out any responsibilities under the prevailing wage laws per Aubry v. Tri-City Hospital Dist. (1992) 2 Cal.4th 962 (Aubry).2 MTC also contended the complaint was barred by plaintiffs’ failure to present a claim within six months or one year from the accrual of the cause of action, as required by Government Code section 911.2. MTC noted the complaint asserted plaintiffs’ employment ended in March 2010, but they did not present a claim to MTC until July 26, 2012. In opposition, plaintiffs sought leave to amend the complaint to allege MTC had acted in contravention of statute by failing to require their employer to post a