Moore v. Utility Traffic Control Services

Background

Sean Moore sued Utility Traffic Control Services, Inc. under California wage laws. The complaint alleged claims involving unpaid wages, overtime, meal periods, rest periods, business-expense reimbursement, waiting-time penalties for final wages, wage records, and California’s unfair-competition law. Moore also sought to represent a group of current and former hourly-paid, non-exempt employees.

The defendant moved to dismiss and asked the court to take judicial notice of a collective bargaining agreement (CBA), a Letter of Assent, and a California Department of Industrial Relations minimum-wage webpage. The court found the Letter of Assent authenticated by a declaration from the defendant’s vice president. It also found that the CBA covered technician flaggers, regardless of whether Moore was a union member, because the CBA covered that job classification. The court granted the request for judicial notice in full.

Section 301 preemption

The court applied the Ninth Circuit’s two-step test for preemption under Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act. Under that test, a state-law claim is preempted if the claimed right exists only because of a CBA or if resolving the claim requires interpreting the CBA rather than merely consulting it.

Overtime claim

The court held that the overtime claim was preempted. California Labor Code section 514 removes section 510’s overtime requirements for employees covered by a qualifying CBA when the agreement provides for wages, hours, working conditions, overtime premiums, and regular pay of at least 30 percent above the state minimum wage. The court found that this CBA met those requirements. It therefore concluded that Moore’s right to overtime was controlled by the CBA rather than state law.

Meal-period claim

The court held that the meal-period claim was preempted. California Labor Code section 512(e) provides an exemption when a qualifying CBA covers wages, hours, working conditions, meal periods, overtime premiums, pay of at least 30 percent above the minimum wage, and a grievance process requiring final and binding arbitration of disputes. The court found that the CBA met those conditions. It also found that the agreement provided for meal periods and a grievance procedure covering disputes about meal-period provisions.

Rest-period claim

The court held that the rest-period claim was preempted. The defendant argued that a regulatory exemption applied because the CBA provided equivalent protection. Moore did not respond to that specific argument, which the court treated as a concession. The court also stated that the weight of authority supported preemption.

Minimum-wage claim

The court held that the minimum-wage claim was not preempted. The defendant argued that resolving the claim would require substantial dependence on the CBA. The court disagreed because the defendant identified no dispute about the meaning of the CBA’s terms and did not explain how interpreting those terms would affect the claim. The court distinguished between consulting the CBA and interpreting disputed contract language.

Waiting-time penalty claim

The court treated the waiting-time penalty claim as partially preempted. Because the minimum-wage claim was not preempted, the court rejected the defendant’s argument to the extent the waiting-time claim was based on minimum wages. But because the overtime claim was preempted, the court held that any waiting-time claim based on unpaid overtime was also preempted. Moore had described the final-pay claim as derivative of the other wage claims.

Business-expense claim

The court held that the claim for reimbursement of necessary business expenses under California Labor Code section 2802 was not preempted. The defendant relied on CBA provisions concerning communications during emergencies, but the court found those provisions did not appear relevant to Moore’s allegation that he had to attend weekly meetings using his personal telephone. The court also noted that section 2802 provides non-waivable protection and concluded that interpreting the CBA was not necessary to resolve the claim.

Derivative claims

The court held that the claims for wage records and violations of California Business and Professions Code sections 17200 and following were preempted to the extent they were based on claims that were themselves preempted. The parties agreed that these claims were derivative of the other claims.

Exhaustion of the grievance procedure

The court stated that an employee must first attempt to use a mandatory or exclusive grievance procedure in a CBA before suing on a preempted claim. The defendant argued that Moore’s complaint did not allege that he followed the CBA’s grievance procedure. Moore did not respond to that argument, so the court treated the point as conceded. The court concluded that Moore’s preempted claims had to be dismissed.

Disposition

The court dismissed Moore’s overtime-pay, meal-period, and rest-period claims. It also dismissed the claims for waiting-time penalties, failure to maintain and provide wage records, and violations of California Business and Professions Code section 17200 and following, to the extent those claims were derivative of preempted claims. The court granted Moore leave to amend and required any amended complaint to be filed by April 10, 2026.

The court did not reach the defendant’s additional arguments for dismissal because the complaint alleged only state-law claims and did not allege diversity jurisdiction. The order therefore granted the motion to dismiss in part, rather than resolving every issue raised by the defendant.