Moreno v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide

Background

Carlos Moreno worked for C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. as a truck driver. He alleged that the company paid him on a piece-rate basis for individual jobs but did not pay him for all work performed. In particular, he alleged that he often waited for several hours while goods were loaded onto and unloaded from his truck without compensation. Moreno brought a proposed class action asserting, among other claims, failure to pay minimum wages, failure to provide accurate wage statements, and violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law.

The court had previously dismissed most of Moreno’s claims but allowed him to amend. C.H. Robinson then moved to dismiss most of the refiled claims.

Failure to Pay Minimum Wages

The court held that Moreno’s amended allegations cured the earlier pleading deficiencies. He alleged that on or about October 31, 2023, he had to wait for loading and unloading, that this happened often, and that the waiting could last several hours without compensation.

C.H. Robinson argued that Moreno also had to allege the total hours he worked and the amount he was paid during a particular week so that his effective hourly rate could be calculated. The court rejected that argument at this stage, explaining that a piece-rate formula that does not directly compensate all time worked does not comply with California law even if the average pay for all hours reaches minimum wage. The failure-to-pay-minimum-wages claim therefore survived dismissal.

Failure to Provide Accurate Wage Statements

The court found that Moreno had sufficiently alleged that at least one wage statement was inaccurate because the wage statement covering October 31, 2023 could have omitted pay for unpaid loading and unloading time. The court also rejected C.H. Robinson’s argument that Moreno could not identify an inaccurate wage statement because he allegedly received wage statements from another entity. The court had rejected that argument in its earlier order after finding that Moreno had sufficiently alleged an employment relationship with C.H. Robinson.

However, the court held that Moreno did not adequately allege the injury required by California Labor Code section 226. The alleged omission of wages, by itself, was not enough. Moreno did not explain how the wage-statement inaccuracy prevented him from determining his total hours, piece-rate units, or whether his actual pay was correctly calculated. He also did not adequately allege that C.H. Robinson knowingly and intentionally failed to provide an accurate wage statement; his allegations of knowledge and intent were conclusory.

The court dismissed this claim with leave to amend because this was the first time it had identified these deficiencies.

Unfair Competition Law Claim

The court again dismissed Moreno’s claim under California’s Unfair Competition Law. In the earlier order, the court had found that Moreno failed to allege that he lacked an adequate legal remedy, as required for the requested restitution. The amended complaint still requested restitutionary disgorgement without explaining how that relief would provide anything beyond the damages and penalties available under California’s Labor Code.

The court also rejected Moreno’s request for injunctive relief because he had not sufficiently alleged that he remained employed by C.H. Robinson and was likely to suffer future harm. Alternative pleading did not cure the failure to allege an inadequate legal remedy.

The court dismissed the Unfair Competition Law claim without leave to amend because it had the same deficiencies identified in the earlier order and did not appear curable through another amended pleading.

Disposition

Judge Rita F. Lin granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss. The minimum-wage claim survived dismissal. The accurate-wage-statement claim was dismissed with leave to amend. The Unfair Competition Law claim was dismissed without leave to amend. Any amended complaint addressing the wage-statement deficiencies had to be filed by December 1, 2025, and could not add claims or parties or otherwise change the allegations except as permitted by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or by court authorization or stipulation.