Tolentino v. Gillig, LLC
- Maxine Chesney
- 3:20-cv-07427
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 13
In Tolentino v. Gillig, LLC, Judge Chesney denied remand, partly granted Gillig’s dismissal motion, dismissed some claims with prejudice, and remanded remaining state claims.
Ronald Tolentino’s wage-and-hour claims against Gillig, LLC, including claims brought on behalf of a proposed class. The order dismissed specified claims with prejudice and returned the remaining state-law claims to California Superior Court.
What happened
In Tolentino v. Gillig, LLC, Ronald Tolentino alleged that Gillig failed to pay required wages, provide meal and rest breaks, keep accurate records, pay final wages on time, and provide accurate wage statements. He brought seven California-law claims on behalf of himself and a proposed class. Gillig removed the case to federal court, arguing that federal labor law preempted the claims because a collective bargaining agreement applied to Tolentino’s employment.
The court held that some claims were preempted because the collective bargaining agreement supplied the relevant rights or because the claims were derivative of those claims. It held that the minimum-wage and rest-break claims were not preempted because resolving them did not require interpreting a disputed contract term. The court also retained supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims while the federal claims were pending.
Judge Chesney denied Tolentino’s motion to remand. She granted in part and denied in part Gillig’s motion to dismiss: she dismissed with prejudice the untimely-wage portion of the first claim, the second claim in its entirety, and derivative portions of the fifth, sixth, and seventh claims. She denied the motion as to the remaining claims and remanded those state-law claims to California Superior Court in Alameda County.
The detailed version
- Tolentino v. Gillig, LLC · No. 3:20-cv-07427
- Maxine Chesney
- Jan. 13, 2021
Background
Ronald Tolentino alleged that Gillig, LLC failed to pay him for all hours worked, including minimum wages and overtime; failed to provide uninterrupted meal and rest periods; failed to maintain accurate time records; failed to pay final wages on time after ending his employment; and failed to provide accurate wage statements. He asserted seven California-law causes of action on behalf of himself and a proposed class:
- Failure to pay minimum wages for all hours worked.
- Failure to pay overtime wages.
- Failure to provide meal periods.
- Failure to authorize and permit rest periods.
- Failure to pay discharged employees the required waiting-time penalties.
- Failure to provide and maintain accurate wage records.
- Violation of California Business and Professions Code sections 17200 and following.
Gillig removed the case from California Superior Court to federal court, arguing that the claims were preempted by section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act. “Preemption” means that federal law displaces a state-law claim. Gillig relied on a collective bargaining agreement between Gillig and Teamsters Local 853 that applied to Tolentino during his employment. Tolentino moved to return the case to state court. Gillig moved to dismiss all claims under Rule 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim.
The Motion to Remand
The court denied Tolentino’s motion to remand all claims. It applied the Ninth Circuit’s two-step test for section 301 preemption. First, the court asked whether the claimed right came from state law or existed only because of the collective bargaining agreement. Second, if the right came from state law, the court asked whether resolving the claim required interpreting the agreement, rather than merely consulting it.
The court held that the overtime portion of the second cause of action was preempted. California Labor Code section 514 removes the usual state overtime rules for employees covered by a qualifying collective bargaining agreement. Because the court found that the applicable agreement met the relevant requirements, Tolentino’s overtime right existed solely because of the agreement.
The court also held that the untimely-payment portions of the first and second causes of action were preempted. The collective bargaining agreement provided for weekly pay, and California Labor Code section 204(c) allows different payment arrangements for employees covered by such an agreement. Thus, the right to the payment arrangement at issue came solely from the agreement.
The court held that the minimum-wage portion of the first cause of action was not preempted. Tolentino alleged that he received no payment for some hours worked, rather than disputing the hourly rate stated in the collective bargaining agreement. The court said that consulting the agreement merely to calculate possible damages did not require interpreting a disputed term.
The court likewise held that the rest-break claim in the fourth cause of action was not preempted. Gillig identified agreement terms concerning employees being “entitled” to breaks, “regular shift,” and “anticipated” overtime, but the court found no active dispute requiring interpretation of those terms.
The court treated the fifth, sixth, and seventh causes of action as preempted to the extent they were derivative of the preempted wage claims. To the extent those claims were not derivative, and as to the meal-period claim in the third cause of action, the court exercised supplemental jurisdiction. Supplemental jurisdiction allows a federal court to hear related state-law claims arising from the same underlying facts.
The Motion to Dismiss and Final Disposition
Gillig argued that Tolentino’s claims should be dismissed because he had not used the grievance and arbitration procedures required by the collective bargaining agreement. Tolentino did not dispute that he had failed to exhaust those procedures, but argued that the agreement did not clearly waive his right to bring statutory claims in court.
The court rejected that argument for the preempted claims because those claims involved rights existing solely under the collective bargaining agreement, not rights created by a state statute. It therefore dismissed:
- The first cause of action to the extent it alleged untimely payment of wages, with prejudice. - The second cause of action in its entirety, with prejudice. - The fifth, sixth, and seventh causes of action to the extent they were derivative of the dismissed claims, with prejudice.
“Dismissed with prejudice” means the court barred those claims from being refiled in the same form. The court denied leave to amend those claims because it found amendment would be futile in light of the agreement’s final and binding grievance procedures.
After dismissing the claims over which it had original federal jurisdiction, the court declined to continue exercising supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims because the case was at an early stage. It denied the motion to dismiss as to the remaining claims and remanded those claims to the Superior Court of California for Alameda County. The court’s order therefore denied the motion to remand, granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss, dismissed specified claims with prejudice, and remanded the remaining state-law claims.
Read the full 13-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.