Picou v. Tracy Logistics LLC

No. 2:24-cv-00526-DC-JDP (E.D. Cal. Apr. 29, 2025) · United States District Court for the Eastern District of California · April 30, 2025 · No. No. 2:24-cv-00526-DC-JDP

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California grants Tracy Logistics LLC’s motion to dismiss Donte Picou’s first amended wage-and-hour class action complaint and denies the motion to strike. The court concludes that California Labor Code exemptions for employees covered by qualifying collective bargaining agreements do not apply because the agreement did not satisfy the required wage threshold for all covered employees. The court also concludes that the asserted claims are not preempted under § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act based on the record presented.

Holdings

  1. The section 514 exemption did not apply because the collective bargaining agreement did not provide a regular hourly rate at least 30 percent above the California minimum wage for all employees covered by the agreement during the relevant period.
  2. The section 245.5(a)(1) exemption did not apply because the collective bargaining agreement did not provide the required enhanced regular rate of pay for all employees covered by the agreement.
  3. The challenged claims were not preempted under section 301 because neither the statutory exemptions nor the asserted wage-and-hour rights required interpretation of the collective bargaining agreement.
  4. The first amended complaint failed to state cognizable claims for minimum wages, overtime, reporting-time pay, meal and rest breaks, vacation wages, paid sick leave, wage statements, payroll records, final wages, expense reimbursement, UCL violations, and PAGA penalties.
  5. The motion to strike the proposed class definitions was denied as premature and procedurally improper.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the 2021 collective bargaining agreement satisfied the California Labor Code exemptions from overtime and paid-sick-leave requirements.
  2. Whether Picou's wage-and-hour claims were preempted under section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act.
  3. Whether the first amended complaint plausibly stated claims for minimum wages, overtime, reporting-time pay, meal and rest breaks, vacation wages, paid sick leave, wage statements, payroll records, final wages, expense reimbursement, UCL violations, and PAGA penalties.
  4. Whether the proposed class definitions should be stricken as improper fail-safe definitions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f).

Disposition

other

Cases Cited (21)

  • Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd., 551 U.S. 308, 322 (2007)(followed)
  • Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 393 (1987)(followed)
  • McCray v. Marriott Hotel Servs., Inc., 902 F.3d 1005, 1009, 1011 (9th Cir. 2018)(followed)
  • Burnside v. Kiewit Pac. Corp., 491 F.3d 1053, 1059 (9th Cir. 2007)(followed)
  • Curtis v. Irwin Indus., Inc., 913 F.3d 1146, 1151-55 (9th Cir. 2019)(followed)
  • Allis-Chalmers Corp. v. Lueck, 471 U.S. 202, 210 (1985)(followed)
  • Teamsters v. Lucas Flour Co., 369 U.S. 95, 103-04 (1962)(followed)
  • Livadas v. Bradshaw, 512 U.S. 107, 123-25 (1994)(followed)
  • Cramer v. Consol. Freightways, Inc., 255 F.3d 683, 691 (9th Cir. 2001)(followed)
  • Kobold v. Good Samaritan Reg'l Med. Ctr., 832 F.3d 1024, 1032-33 (9th Cir. 2016)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 21.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…