United States District Court, N.D. California
ORDER RE: DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE
PLEADINGS RE: DKT. NOS. 33, 35
JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Henry Hernandez brings state law wage and hour claims against
his former employer Sysco Corporation and Sysco San Francisco
(collectively “Defendants”) on behalf of himself
and a putative class. Defendants now move for judgment on the
pleadings pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c)
contending that Plaintiff's claims are preempted by the
Labor Management Relations Act (“LMRA”) and
barred by state law. (Dkt. Nos. 33 & 35.) After carefully
considering the arguments and briefing submitted and having
had the benefit of oral argument on April 27, 2017, the Court
GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Defendants' motion.
worked for Defendants as a non-exempt employee until
September 20, 2016. (Complaint ¶ 14.) The parties do not
dispute that as a non-exempt employee his employment was
governed by a Collective Bargaining Agreement
(“CBA”) between Sysco San Francisco and the
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 853.
after he left his employment with Defendants, Plaintiff filed
this putative class action complaint in Alameda Superior
Court. (Dkt. No. 1-1.) He asserts seven claims for relief under
state law: (1) failure to provide rest periods in violation
of California Labor Code § 226.7 and Wage Order 7; (2)
failure to provide meal periods in violation of California
Labor Code §§ 226.7, 512, and Wage Order 7; (3)
failure to pay overtime in violation of California Labor Code
§§ 510, 1194, 1194.2, and Wage Order No. 7; (4)
failure to pay minimum wage in violation of California Labor
Code §§ 1197, 1194(a), 1194.2; (5) failure to pay
wages at termination in violation of California Labor Code
§§ 201, 202, 203; (6) failure to issue accurate and
itemized wage statements in violation of California Labor
Code §§ 226(b), 1174, 1175, and Wage Order No. 7);
and (7) violation of unfair competition law in violation of
California Business and Professions Code § 17200 et seq.
filed their answer in state court on November 21, 2016 and
simultaneously removed the complaint to federal court under
the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”). (Dkt.
Nos. 1; 1-2.) Plaintiff thereafter filed a motion for remand
which the Court denied. (Dkt. No. 20.) Defendants then filed
the now pending motion for judgment on the pleadings under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c).
the pleadings are closed, but within such time as not to
delay the trial, any party may move for judgment on the
pleadings.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(c). In deciding a Rule
12(c) motion, the court may consider “documents
attached to the complaint, documents incorporated by
reference in the complaint, or matters of judicial
notice.” United States v. Ritchie, 342 F.3d
903, 908 (9th Cir. 2003). A court “must accept all
factual allegations in the complaint as true and construe
them in the light most favorable to the non-moving
party.” Fleming v. Pickard, 581 F.3d 922, 925
(9th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted). Accepting all allegations
of the non-moving party as true, judgment “is proper
when the moving party clearly establishes on the face of the
pleadings that no material issue of fact remains to be
resolved and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of
law.” Hal Roach Studios, Inc. v. Richard Feiner
& Co., Inc., 896 F.2d 1542, 1550 (9th Cir. 1989). In
other words, the standard of review is “functionally
identical” to the Rule 12(b)(6) standard. Cafasso
v. Gen. Dynamics C4 Sys., Inc., 637 F.3d 1047, 1054 n.4
(9th Cir. 2011). “Dismissal [of claims] can be based on
the lack of a cognizable legal theory or the absence of
sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable legal
theory.” Conservation Force v. Salazar, 646
F.3d 1240, 1242 (9th Cir. 2011) (internal citation and
quotation marks omitted).
argue that (1) Plaintiff's third claim for relief is
barred by Labor Code Section 514's exemption on overtime
claims; (2) Plaintiff's first, second, third, and fourth
claims for relief are preempted by section 301 of the LMRA;
and (3) Plaintiff's fifth, sixth, and seventh claims for
relief fail to state a claim because they are derivative of
claims which are otherwise subject to dismissal. The Court
addresses each argument in turn.
Requests for Judicial Notice
preliminary matter, the Court addresses the parties'
requests for judicial notice. (Dkt. Nos. 34 & 37.)
Defendants request judicial notice of two CBAs between Sysco
San Francisco and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Local 853, effective November 2, 2013 through November 1,
2015, and November 2, 2015 through November 1, 2019,
respectively, (Dkt. Nos. 34-1 & 34-2); as well as a
minute order of the San Diego County Superior Court
sustaining defendants' demurrer in Jason Simon v.
Sysco Corporation et al., No. 37-2014-000
12263-CU-OE-CTL, dated August 4, 2016 (Dkt. No. 34-3).
Plaintiff has not objected to Defendants' request. A
court may take judicial notice of a CBA in evaluating a
motion to dismiss. See, e.g., Densmore v.
Mission Linen Supply, 164 F.Supp.3d 1180, 1187 (E.D.
Cal. 2016) (internal quotation marks omitted); Jones v.
AT&T, No. C 07-3888 JF (PR), 2008 WL 902292, at *2
(N.D. Cal. Mar. 31, 2008) (“the Court may take judicial
notice of a CBA in evaluating a motion to dismiss.”).
The court may also “take notice of proceedings in other
courts, both within and without the federal judicial system,
if those proceedings have a direct relation to matters at
issue.” See United States v. Black, 482 F.3d
1035, 1041 (9th Cir. 2007). The Court thus GRANTS
Defendants' Request for Judicial Notice. (Dkt. No. 34.)
requests judicial notice of (1) the complaint filed in this
action in the Superior Court for the County of Alameda (Dkt.
No. 37-2); (2) an order filed in Lopez v. Sysco
Corporation et al., No. 15-cv-04420-JSW, (N.D. Cal. Jan.
25, 2016) granting plaintiff's motion to remand and
denying defendants' motion to dismiss as moot (Dkt. No.
37-1); (3) a copy of the CBA filed in that same
Lopez action (Dkt. No. 37-3); and (4) an order filed
in the Lopez case upon remand to the Superior Court
of the County of Alameda, Lopez v. Sysco Corporation et
al., Case No. RG15782744, (Jul. 14, 2016) overruling
defendants' demurrer (Dkt. No. 37-4).
judicially noticed fact must be one not subject to reasonable
dispute in that it is either (1) generally known within the
territorial jurisdiction of the trial court or (2) capable of
accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose
accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.” Fed.R.Evid.
201. For the reasons noted above, the Court may take judicial
notice of the requested pleadings and court orders. See
Black, 482 F.3d at 1041. Further, to the extent that
Plaintiff requests judicial notice of the fact that the CBA
in the Lopez action is identical to the CBA in this
action-a fact which ...