Chatman v. WeDriveU, Inc ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 PRECIOUS CHATMAN, Case No. 3:22-cv-04849-WHO; Plaintiff, 3:22-cv-04850-WHO 8 9 v. GRANTING MOTION FOR PARTIAL JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS 10 WEDRIVEU, INC, AND GRANTING IN PART MOTION TO REMAND Defendant. 11 Re: Dkt. No. 18 (case no. 22-cv-04849) 12 Dkt. Nos. 16, 22 (case no. 22-cv-04859) 13 14 Plaintiff Precious Chatman works for defendant company WeDriveU, a shuttle 15 transportation service based in the Bay Area. She brought a putative class action and a claim 16 arising under California’s Private Attorney General Act (“PAGA”) in state court, alleging 17 WeDriveU violated various California state workplace laws. As relevant here, Chatman asserts 18 that WeDriveU failed to pay proper overtime, meal period, and sick leave. She also argues 19 WeDriveU engaged in unfair business practices and failed to pay minimum wage, provide 20 required rest periods, provide accurate itemized wage statements, and reimburse employees for 21 business expenses. These violations, she says, also give rise to her PAGA cause of action. 22 Currently pending are Chatman’s Motion to Remand case No. 3:22-CV-04850 (“the 23 PAGA case”) to state court (“Rem. Mot.”), [Dkt. No. 22]; WeDriveU’s Motion for Judgment on 24 the Pleadings in the PAGA case (“PAGA Mot.”), [Dkt. 16]; and WeDriveU’s Motion for 25 Judgment on the Pleadings in case no. 3:22-CV-04849 (“the class action” or “the purported class 26 action”) (“Class Mot.”), [Dkt. 18]. WeDriveU’s motion for judgment on the pleadings1 in both 27 1 cases rests on the theory that § 301 of the Labor and Management Relations Act (“LMRA”) 2 preempts Chatman’s claims pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”). That is 3 correct, as far as it goes, since Chatman also brings claims not encompassed by the CBA that are 4 not preempted. Chatman opposes judgment on the pleadings and moves to remand the PAGA suit 5 to state court. For the reasons that follow, I will GRANT the Motions for Judgment on the 6 Pleadings in each case and GRANT in part the Motion to Remand the PAGA case. I decline to 7 exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims in either case and so sua 8 sponte remand to state court all remaining state law claims in both cases. 9 BACKGROUND 10 Chatman brings her putative class action claims on behalf of herself and all those similarly 11 situated. Class Action Complaint (“Class Compl.”) [Class Dkt. No. 1, Ex. A ¶ 27, 37]. She also 12 brings a claim under PAGA based on the same underlying allegedly unlawful conduct. PAGA 13 Complaint (“PAGA Compl.”) [PAGA Dkt. No. 1, Ex. A ¶¶ 1, 4-6, 11, 13-17, 19-20, 22-26]. 14 While the class complaint seeks remedies for conduct going back to April 2018, the PAGA case 15 seeks remedies only since February 11, 2021. Id. ¶ 7. Because both complaints assert the same 16 underlying facts, I cite only the class complaint in this factual recitation. 17 Chatman alleges that defendant WeDriveU provides shuttle transportation services for 18 various third-party companies, and that she began working for WeDriveU in April 2018. Class 19 Compl. ¶¶ 2, 3. She asserts that she was not paid for time spent undergoing mandatory drug tests, 20 COVID questionnaires and screenings, and other required examinations; that WeDriveU routinely 21 rounded down actual time worked when recording hours and pay; and that working without time 22 properly recorded forced her to forfeit her statutory rights to minimum wage, overtime 23 compensation, off-duty meal periods, and proper sick leave compensation. Id. ¶ 8. She alleges 24 that WeDriveU incorrectly calculated her overtime, meal, and rest period pay by failing to account 25 for her “incentive compensation.” Id. ¶ 10. The complaint also states that WeDriveU failed to 26 provide the required 30 minute off-duty meal periods or rest periods and rounded down the 27 1 counted time, id. ¶ 11, 12, 24; failed to pay minimum wage or overtime for all hours worked, id. 2 ¶ 13, 24; failed to provide itemized and accurate wage statements, id. ¶ 14; did not furnish wages 3 within seven calendar days of the close of payroll, id. ¶ 16; miscalculated her sick leave pay, id. 4 ¶ 17-19; failed to reimburse her for required business expenses, including use of cell phones, id. 5 ¶ 22-23; and has not paid required waiting time penalties, id. ¶ 20. She also says that WeDriveU’s 6 various alleged violations of state law were unfair business practices, in violation of California 7 Business and Professions Code sections 17200, et. seq (the Unfair Competition Law, or “UCL”), 8 including WeDriveU’s failure to properly record hours worked, pay workers minimum wage and 9 overtime wages, and provide workers meal and rest periods. Id. ¶ 32. 10 Chatman’s PAGA claim alleges that this same conduct violated various state laws, which 11 together form the basis for a PAGA action. PAGA Compl. ¶ 8. 12 WeDriveU removed both cases to federal court, asserting as the basis for jurisdiction 13 preemption under § 301 of the LMRA. [Class Dkt. No. 1; PAGA Dkt. No. 1]. The removal 14 notices explained that Chatman is subject to the CBA, the terms of which preempt many of her 15 claims. Alongside its motions, WeDriveU filed Requests for Judicial Notice with a copy of the 16 CBA. [Class Dkt. No. 19; PAGA Dkt. No. 17]. Chatman does not mention the CBA in her 17 complaints. 18 As discussed further below, infra Discussion.II, I grant the Requests for Judicial Notice 19 and so I review the relevant contents of the CBA here. See Class Dkt. No. 19, Ex A. The CBA 20 provides for wages that are not less than 30 percent more than state minimum wage, id. at 27-28; 21 hours of work, id. at 6; working conditions, id. at 6-7, 9, 17-18, 28; premium overtime, id. at 6-7; 22 final and binding arbitration, id. at 22-24; and paid sick days, id. at 16. 23 Additionally, and as relevant to these suits, WeDriveU previously settled class claims for 24 alleged violations of worker protection laws (“the Davis Settlement”). See Reply in Support of 25 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (“Class Repl.”) [Class Dkt. No. 23] Ex. A, B. As discussed 26 below, infra Discussion.II, I take judicial notice of these settlement documents. Unless a class 27 member opted out, the Davis Settlement waived the rights of all WeDriveU employees to bring 1 overtime, unreimbursed business expenses, waiting time penalties, vacation and sick leave pay, 2 maintenance of employee records, adequacy of wage statements, PAGA penalties, unfair business 3 practices, and “[a]ny other claims alleged . . . or which could have been alleged based on the facts 4 alleged.” Id. Ex. A at pdf 11-12. The judicially approved settlement includes the names of parties 5 that opted out and Chatman is not listed. Id. at Ex. B pdf 7. 6 LEGAL STANDARD 7 I. Judgment on the Pleadings 8 “Judgment on the pleadings is properly granted when [, accepting all factual allegations in 9 the complaint as true,] there is no issue of material fact in dispute, and the moving party is entitled 10 to judgment as a matter of law.” Chavez v. United States, 683 F.3d 1102, 1108 (9th Cir. 2012) 11 (quoting Fleming v. Pickard, 581 F.3d 922, 925 (9th Cir. 2009)). “Analysis under Rule 12(c) is 12 ‘substantially identical’ to analysis under Rule 12(b)(6) because, under both rules, ‘a court must 13 determine whether the facts alleged in the complaint, taken as true, entitle the plaintiff to a legal 14 remedy.’” Id. (quoting Brooks v. Dunlop Mfg. Inc., No. C 10–04341 CRB, 2011 WL 6140912, at 15 *3 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 9, 2011)). Either motion may be granted only when it is clear that “no relief 16 could be granted under any set of facts that could be proven consistent with the allegations.” 17 McGlinchy v. Shull Chem. Co., 845 F.2d 802, 810 (9th Cir. 1988) (citations omitted). Dismissal 18 may be based on either the lack of a cognizable legal theory or absence of sufficient facts alleged 19 under a cognizable legal theory. Robertson v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 749 F. 2d 530, 534 20 (9th. Cir. 1984). 21 A plaintiff’s complaint must allege facts to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its 22 face. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677 (2009). A claim has “facial plausibility” when the 23 party seeking relief “pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference 24 that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. Although the Court must accept as 25 true the well-pled facts in a complaint, conclusory allegations of law and unwarranted inferences 26 will not defeat an otherwise proper Rule 12(b)(6) motion. See Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors, 27 266 F.3d 979, 988 (9th Cir. 2001). “[A] plaintiff’s obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of his 1 elements of a cause of action will not do. Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to 2 relief above the speculative level.” See Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) 3 (citations and footnote omitted). 4 “Finally, although Rule 12(c) does not mention leave to amend, courts have discretion both 5 to grant a Rule 12(c) motion with leave to amend, and to simply grant dismissal of the action 6 instead of entry of judgment.” Sarmiento v. Sealy, Inc., 367 F. Supp. 3d 1131, 1139 (N.D. Cal. 7 2019) (quoting Lonberg v. City of Riverside, 300 F.Supp.2d 942, 945 (C.D. Cal. 2004)). 8 II. Motion to Remand 9 Courts construe the removal statute against removal jurisdiction and “[t]he party seeking 10 removal bears the burden of establishing jurisdiction.” Tanner v. Ford Motor Co., 424 F. Supp. 11 3d 666, 670 (N.D. Cal. 2019) (citations omitted); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1441. The “well-pleaded 12 complaint” rule provides that “federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is present on 13 the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 14 386, 392 (1987). “A corollary to the well-pleaded complaint rule is the ‘complete preemption’ 15 doctrine, which applies in cases in which ‘the preemptive force of a statute is so extraordinary that 16 it converts an ordinary state common-law complaint into one stating a federal claim for purposes 17 of the well-pleaded complaint rule.’” In re NOS Commc’ns, MDL No. 1357, 495 F.3d 1052, 1057 18 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting Caterpillar, 482 U.S. at 393). “Once an area of state law has been 19 completely preempted, any claim purportedly based on that pre-empted state law is considered, 20 from its inception, a federal claim, and therefore arises under federal law.” Id.; see also Braswell 21 v. AHMC San Gabriel Valley Med. Ctr. LP, No. CV-21-09959-MWF-AGR, 2022 WL 707206, at 22 *2 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 8, 2022). 23 III. Judicial Notice 24 When considering a motion for judgment on the pleadings, “the court may consider facts 25 which may be judicially noticeable.” Conde v. Open Door Mktg., LLC, 223 F. Supp. 3d 949, 970 26 (N.D. Cal. 2017); see also Heliotrope Gen., Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 189 F.3d 971, 981 n.18 (9th 27 Cir. 1999). Courts “may judicially notice a fact that is not subject to reasonable dispute” if the fact 1 questioned.” Fed. R. Evid. 201(b). 2 At a motion for judgment on the pleadings, courts generally do not consider exhibits 3 attached to the motion unless they were attached to the complaint, or the motion is converted to 4 summary judgment. See United States v. Ritchie, 342 F.3d 903, 907 (9th Cir. 2003). But review 5 of a motion for judgment on the pleadings may extend beyond “the contents of the complaint” to 6 include “evidence on which the complaint ‘necessarily relies’ if: (1) the complaint refers to the 7 document; (2) the document is central to the plaintiff’s claim; and (3) no party questions the 8 authenticity of the copy attached to the . . . motion.’” See Armstrong v. Reynolds, 22 F.4th 1058, 9 1064 n.2 (9th Cir. 2022) (quoting Marder v. Lopez, 450 F.3d 445, 448 (9th Cir. 2006)); see also 10 Ritchie, 342 F.3d at 908. If an exhibit meets those requirements, courts may consider the 11 document in a motion to dismiss or motion for judgment on the pleadings without converting it 12 into a motion for summary judgment. See Armstrong, 22 F.4th at 1083 n.6 (citing Marder, 450 13 F.3d at 448). 14 Courts may also “consider evidence in deciding a remand motion, including documents 15 that can be judicially noticed.” Vasserman v. Henry Mayo Newhall Mem’l Hosp., 65 F. Supp. 3d 16 932, 941 (C.D. Cal. 2014) (citing Ryti v. State Farm Gen. Ins. Co., No. C 12–01709 JW, 2012 WL 17 2339718, *1 n. 4 (N.D. Cal. May 30, 2012)). 18 DISCUSSION 19 I. Requests for Judicial Notice 20 As a preliminary matter, WeDriveU requests that I take judicial notice of three documents: 21 the CBA, the Davis settlement documents, and a declaration from the WeDriveU Chief Financial 22 Officer that also includes Chatman’s employee application. See Class Dkt. No. 19 (CBA); PAGA 23 Dkt. No. 17 (CBA); Class Repl. Ex. A, B [Class Dkt. No. 23] (Davis settlement documents); 24 Opposition to Motion to Remand (“Rem. Oppo.”) [PAGA Dkt. No. 26] Ex. A, B, C (declaration 25 and employee application). Chatman requests I take judicial notice of a district court opinion 26 attached to her Reply to Motion to Remand (“Rem. Repl.”) [PAGA Dkt. No. 29]. 27 Chatman does not oppose WeDriveU’s request for judicial notice of the CBA. She does 1 effective date, as discussed below). See Armstrong, 22 F.4th at 1064 n.2. While the complaint 2 does not refer to the CBA, the claims inherently rely on the CBA, as evidenced by WeDriveU’s 3 argument that those claims are preempted by the CBA. See id. Therefore, the document is central 4 to those claims. See id. This request for judicial notice is GRANTED. 5 Chatman also does not oppose WeDriveU’s request for judicial notice of the Davis 6 Settlement documents, which includes a declaration from Tina Chiango and the Final Approval of 7 the Davis/Timmins Class Action Settlement. See Class Repl. at 5 n.2; id. Ex. A. WeDriveU’s 8 exhibits were filed with the Superior Court of California and so are publicly available records that 9 may be judicially noticed. See ASARCO, LLC v. Union Pac. R. Co., 765 F.3d 999, 1008 n.2 (9th 10 Cir. 2014). This request for judicial notice is GRANTED. 11 Chatman’s request for judicial notice of the district court opinion is GRANTED for the 12 same reason. See id. 13 Finally, Chatman does not appear to oppose judicial notice of WeDriveU’s exhibits 14 attached to its Opposition to the Motion to Remand. See Rem. Oppo. Ex. A. On a motion to 15 remand, I may consider evidence subject to judicial notice, see Vasserman, 65 F. Supp. 3d at 941, 16 but I decline to do so here. The exhibits contain a declaration from the WeDriveU Chief Financial 17 Officer attesting to the effective dates of the CBA, along with copies of Chatman’s job application 18 and driving record. See Rem. Oppo. Ex. A, B, C. Chatman disputes the effective date of the CBA 19 and alleges she began work on a different date than that provided in the job application. See 20 Opposition to Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings in PAGA Case (“PAGA Oppo.”) [Dkt. No. 21 26] 1:8-17; Class Compl. ¶ 3. Because of these disputes, and because I cannot determine the 22 veracity of the facts at this stage without other evidence, I decline to judicially notice these 23 exhibits. See Fed. R. Evid. 201(b).2 24 25 26 2 At any rate, WeDriveU submitted these documents to prove the CBA’s effective date and to suggest Chatman began working in May 2018 instead of April, as she asserts. Because the Davis 27 settlement agreement waives Chatman’s claims from April 2018 to December 22, 2018, see infra 1 II. Subject Matter Jurisdiction 2 Chatman filed a motion to remand the PAGA case to state court, which asserted in part that 3 I do not have jurisdiction over that case because the complaint concerns only questions of state 4 law.3 See generally Rem. Mot. She asserts LMRA § 301 preemption cannot give rise to federal 5 jurisdiction, Rem. Repl., and that her PAGA claims do not create federal jurisdiction under § 301 6 preemption because the real party in interest in PAGA suits is the state of California, which was 7 not a party to the CBA, Rem. Mot. 1:16-18; 7:22-9:3. In turn, WeDriveU contends there is federal 8 jurisdiction over Chatman’s underlying overtime, meal period, and sick leave claims because those 9 rights arise from her CBA and are thus preempted by LMRA § 301. See generally Rem. Oppo. 10 As a brief background, LMRA § 301 is “a jurisdictional statute” that “authorized the 11 federal courts to develop a federal common law of CBA interpretation.” Cramer v. Consol. 12 Freightways, Inc., 255 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2001) (citing Textile Workers Union v. Lincoln 13 Mills, 353 U.S. 448, 451 (1957)). This federal common law and § 301 preemption extend to all 14 cases “whose resolution ‘is substantially dependent upon analysis of the terms of an agreement 15 made between the parties in a labor contract.’” Id. (quoting Allis-Chalmers Corp. v. Lueck, 471 16 U.S. 202, 220 (1985)). Preempted claims include those “founded directly on rights created by 17 collective-bargaining agreements” as well as those “substantially dependent on analysis of a 18 collective-bargaining agreement.” Id. (citing Caterpillar, 482 U.S. at 396 n.10); see also Burnside 19 v. Kiewit Pac. Corp., 491 F.3d 1053, 1059 (9th Cir. 2007) (outlining two-part test for § 301 20 preemption). “[F]ederal preemption under § 301 is an essential component of federal labor 21 policy” as it is an “effort to erect a system of industrial self-government” that “calls into being a 22 new common law.” Curtis v. Irwin Indus., Inc., 913 F.3d 1146, 1152 (9th Cir. 2019) (internal 23 citations and quotation marks omitted). “[T]he labor arbitrator [chosen by the CBAs] is usually 24 the appropriate adjudicator for CBA disputes because [they were] chosen due to the parties’ 25 confidence in [their] knowledge of the common law of the shop.” Id. 26 Federal case law regarding LMRA § 301 preemption has shifted in recent years. In certain 27 1 prior federal cases where employees asserted state law claims of violations of workers’ statutory 2 rights, the employers countered that the statutes providing those rights contained exceptions for 3 workers covered by valid CBAs, so the rights arose from the CBAs and were preempted by 4 LMRA § 301. See, e.g., Young v. Securitas Sec. Servs. USA, Inc., No. 17-CV-05342-JCS, 2018 5 WL 1142190, at *2-3 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 2, 2018); Lopez v. Sysco Corp., No. 15-cv-04420-JSW, 6 2016 WL 3078840, at *3-5 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 25, 2016); Vasserman, 65 F. Supp. 3d at 953-54. 7 Federal courts rejected that preemption argument because, they reasoned, the statutory exceptions 8 were affirmative defenses that did not create LMRA preemption, and in some cases, did not confer 9 federal jurisdiction. See Young, 2018 WL 1142190 at *7 (reasoning that statutory exceptions to 10 labor law requirements “are affirmative defenses [that] do not give rise to section 301 preemption, 11 even if adjudication of those defenses would require reference to the CBA” (citing Cramer, 255 12 F.3d at 691)); Lopez, 2016 WL 3078840, at *3-4 (“To the extent [the employer] argues merely 13 invoking an exemption [to the statutory right] will satisfy [the test for § 301 preemption], the 14 Court does not find the argument persuasive.”); Vasserman, 65 F. Supp. 3d at 954 (determining 15 that the statutory exception to overtime wages for CBA-covered employees is an affirmative 16 defense that does not give rise to § 301 preemption). But see Coria v. Recology, Inc., 63 F. Supp. 17 3d 1093, 1097 (N.D. Cal. 2014) (reaching the opposite conclusion with a similar fact pattern). 18 Indeed, the Ninth Circuit alluded to a similar analysis as recently as 2018: “[C]laims are not 19 simply CBA disputes by another name, and so are not preempted under this first step, if they just 20 . . . invite use of the CBA as a defense.” Alaska Airlines v. Schurke, 898 F.3d 904, 921 (9th Cir. 21 2018) (en banc) (citing Caterpillar, 482 U.S. at 398). 22 But in 2019, the Ninth Circuit reached a different conclusion in Curtis. In that case, the 23 defendant removed to federal court the plaintiff’s state law claims that the defendant violated 24 various provisions of the state labor code, including its provision for overtime pay. Curtis, 913 25 F.3d at 1150-51. Like the cases above, the defendant asserted that the overtime claim (among 26 others) was preempted by LMRA §301 because, although the plaintiff’s claim was for violation of 27 the statutory right to overtime wages, the statutory exception to that right applied as the plaintiff 1 defendant argued, came not from the statute but from the CBA provisions. See id. The overtime 2 claim, therefore, was preempted by LMRA § 301 because the claim arose from the terms of the 3 CBA, and because it was preempted, the federal court had jurisdiction. See id. 4 The Ninth Circuit agreed. Id. at 1153-54. The court determined that it had jurisdiction 5 over the alleged state law violation because the statutory exception applied and so the claim was 6 preempted by § 301. See id. at 1151 n.4 (determining the district court had jurisdiction over the 7 overtime claim under § 301); id. at 1155 (holding the overtime claims arose under the CBA and so 8 were preempted by § 301). The court further declared: “Although normally federal preemption is 9 a defense that does not authorize removal to federal court, § 301 has such ‘extraordinary pre- 10 emptive power’ that it ‘converts an ordinary state common law complaint into one stating a federal 11 claim for purposes of the well-pleaded complaint rule.’” Id. at 1152 (quoting Metro. Life. Ins. v. 12 Taylor, 481 U.S. 58, 65 (1987)). “In other words, a civil complaint raising claims preempted by 13 § 301 raises a federal question that can be removed to a federal court.” Id. 14 In light of Chatman’s insistence that Curtis does not provide a basis for jurisdiction, see 15 Rem. Repl., the dictate of Curtis bears repeating: “[A] civil complaint raising claims preempted 16 by § 301 raises a federal question that can be removed to a federal court.” Id. (emphasis added). 17 Chatman cites some decisions that granted motions to dismiss in part because they found § 301 18 preemption did not confer federal jurisdiction, but several of her citations are pre-Curtis decisions 19 and many of the ones that came after did not discuss the rule from Curtis. 4 Rem. Repl. 2:15-3:2; 20 7:10-9:6. She also distinguishes Curtis because she says no party had contested jurisdiction so the 21 court did not consider it, but that is incorrect, see id. at 1151 n.4, and irrelevant, because a court 22 must have jurisdiction to rule on the merits, see Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Risjord, 449 U.S. 23 368, 379 (1981). Additionally, many post-Curtis decisions have properly applied Curtis’s 24 4 See, e.g., Rem. Repl. Ex. A (attaching Order Granting Motion to Remand in Hood v. Nat’l Steel 25 & Shipbuilding Co., No. 3:21-cv-00663-AJB-DEB (S.D. Cal. Mar. 28, 2022)); Wilson-Davis v. SSP Am., Inc., 434 F. Supp. 3d 806 (C.D. Cal. 2020); Matthews v. Amtrak Nat’l R.R. Passenger 26 Corp., 402 F. Supp. 3d 930 (E.D. Cal. 2019). But see Zamora v. Overhill Farms, Inc., No. 2:19- CV-03891-VAP-AFMx, 2019 WL 3942961, at *4 n.3 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 21, 2019) (distinguishing 27 Curtis because in Ross the plaintiff did not concede her arose under the CBA); Ross v. Stater Bros. 1 clarified jurisdictional mandate, found subject matter jurisdiction based on § 301 preemption, and 2 denied motions to remand.5 3 Federal jurisdiction makes sense in light of the history and purpose of § 301, including 4 LMRA’s goal of creating federal common law and directing CBA-related claims to the parties’ 5 chosen labor arbitrators. See Curtis, 913 F.3d at 1152. And most importantly, I am required to 6 follow Ninth Circuit precedent regardless of any conflict with district court determinations. While 7 I do not think there is a conflict here, I must apply the jurisdictional rule from Curtis, which is 8 directly applicable to this case. See id. As discussed below, Chatman is statutorily excepted from 9 overtime, meal period, and sick pay statutes because she is covered by a valid CBA. See infra 10 Discussion.III.2. Under the reasoning of Curtis, Chatman’s rights to overtime, meal periods, and 11 sick leave wages arise from the CBA and not from the statute, and so are preempted by LMRA 12 § 301. See Curtis, 913 F.3d at 1154-55. I therefore have jurisdiction over those claims in the class 13 complaint. 14 I also have jurisdiction over the PAGA case. Federal courts “look to the underlying 15 character of the claim” and find jurisdiction where the PAGA claim is, “in part, derivative of 16 [plaintiff’s] own overtime and meal period claims.” Radcliff v. San Diego Gas & Elec. Co., 519 F. 17 Supp. 3d 743, 748 (S.D. Cal. 2021). Chatman’s PAGA claim seeks civil penalties in part for 18 WeDriveU’s alleged violations of California Labor Code sections 510 (regulating payment of 19 overtime wages); 226.7 and 512 (regulating meal periods); and 201-04, 233, and 246 (regulating 20 provisions for sick leave). PAGA Compl. ¶ 20, 22, 34. The “underlying character of the claim,” 21 then, relies on the underlying alleged violations of overtime, meal period, and sick leave laws. See 22 Radcliff, 519 F. Supp. 3d at 748. As in Radcliff, here Chatman’s PAGA claims are at least partly 23 derivative of her overtime, meal period, and sick leave claims, which as discussed below, are 24 5 See, e.g., Giles v. Canus Corp., No. 22-CV-03097-MMC, 2022 WL 3370793, at *4 & n.8 (N.D. 25 Cal. Aug. 16, 2022); Fennix v. Tenderloin Hous. Clinic, Inc., No. 20-CV-05207-DMR, 2020 WL 6462394, at *3-4 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 3, 2020) (explicitly rejecting plaintiff’s reliance on Vasserman 26 and other pre-Curtis authorities as “no longer good law”); Braswell v. AHMC San Gabriel Valley Med. Ctr. LP, No. CV-2109959-MWF-AGR, 2022 WL 707206, at *2-4 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 8, 2022); 27 Radcliff v. San Diego Gas & Elec. Co., 519 F. Supp. 3d 743, 747-49, 752 (S.D. Cal. 2021); 1 preempted by LMRA § 301. See Discussion.III.2. Because the PAGA claims rely in part on the 2 preempted claims, over which I have jurisdiction, I also have jurisdiction over the PAGA claims. 3 See Radcliff, 519 F. Supp. 3d at 748; see also Blackwell, 2021 WL 2634501, at *6. 4 III. Motions for Judgment on the Pleadings 5 WeDriveU moved for partial judgment on the pleadings in the purported class action and 6 the PAGA case for the specific allegations that WeDriveU violated overtime, meal period, and 7 sick leave laws. Class Mot.; PAGA Mot. WeDriveU asserts that these claims are preempted by 8 LMRA § 301 and should be dismissed. Chatman argues that judgment on the pleadings is 9 improper because her claims arise under state law and not the CBA, the effective date of the CBA 10 is a contested material fact and so the claims should not be dismissed, and WeDriveU does not 11 show the CBA covers all purported class members.6 Class Oppo.; PAGA Oppo. 12 1. 2018 Settlement 13 As a preliminary matter, under the terms of the 2018 Davis Settlement agreement Chatman 14 released all her claims that arose before December 22, 2018. See Repl. Class Action Ex. A. The 15 Davis Settlement was approved by the Santa Clara Superior Court on November 15, 2019. See id. 16 Ex. B. Unless an individual opted out, the agreement released the claims of any WeDriveU 17 employee that arose before or on December 22, 2018, related to: • failure to pay meal period premiums or failure to provide meal periods 18 under the Labor Code or Wage Order [as claimed in Count 4 of the Class 19 Action case]; • failure to pay rest period premiums or failure to authorize and permit rest 20 periods under the Labor Code or Wage Order [as claimed in Count 5 of the Class Action case]; 21 • [a]ll claims for unpaid wages, failure to pay minimum wage, failure to pay overtime, including related to the calculation of the overtime rate, and any 22 other claim for failure to pay wages under the Labor Code or Wage Order 23 [as claimed in Count 2 of the Class Action case]; • [a]ll claims for failure to reimburse business expenses [as claimed in Count 24 7 of the Class Action case]; 25 6 As WeDriveU notes, Class Repl. 2:21-26; PAGA Repl. 2:17-20, it does not need to prove that 26 the CBA covers all purported class members in order to dismiss Chatman’s claims because she is covered by the CBA. If the purported class representative does not have a claim, she may not seek 27 relief on behalf of herself or any other member of the purported class. See NEI Contracting & • [a]ll claims for failure to timely pay wages and/or waiting time penalties [as 1 claimed in Counts 2-8 of the Class Action case]; 2 • [a]ll claims related to the payment of vacation pay or paid sick leave, whether under any other provision of the Labor Code or any other law [as 3 claimed in Count 8 of the Class Action case]; • [a]ll claims for failure to maintain records or personnel files [as claimed in 4 Count 3 of the Class Action case]; 5 • [a]ll claims for failure to issue adequate wage statements, whether for any penalty or wage [as claimed in Counts 2-8 of the Class Action case]; 6 • [a]ll claims for penalties under [PAGA] based on any Labor Code violation which was alleged . . . or which could have been alleged based on the facts 7 alleged [as claimed in the PAGA case]; • [a]ll claims for unfair business practices under Business and Professions 8 Code § 17200 . . . [as claimed in Count 1 of the Class Action case]; 9 • [a]ny other claims alleged . . . or which could have been alleged based on the facts alleged. 10 Id. Ex. A at pdf 11-12. 11 Chatman alleged in her complaint that she started work with WeDriveU in April 2018,7 12 Class Compl. ¶ 3, and her name does not appear on the list of individuals who opted out of the 13 settlement, Repl. Class Action Ex. B. Under the plain terms of the settlement, then, Chatman 14 released all relevant claims arising before December 22, 2018.8 Her claims in the purported class 15 action are DISMISSED to the extent that they arise before December 22, 2018. 16 2. LMRA § 301 Preemption 17 “Although § 301 contains no express language of preemption, the Supreme Court has long 18 interpreted the LMRA as authorizing federal courts to create a uniform body of federal common 19 law to adjudicate disputes that arise out of labor contracts.” Curtis, 913 F.3d at 1151 (first citing 20 Luek, 471 U.S. at 210, then citing Teamsters v. Lucas Flour Co., 369 U.S. 95, 103-04 (1962)). 21 “Thus, any suit ‘alleging a violation of a provision of a labor contract must be brought under § 301 22 23 7 This is a contested fact and WeDriveU attempted to submit a declaration showing that Chatman 24 did not begin working until May. But because the Davis Settlement waived all claims brought before December 22, 2018, whether Chatman began working in April or May 2018 is immaterial 25 to this case and so does not preclude judgment on the pleadings. 26 8 In Chatman’s opposition to these motions, she argues that WeDriveU did not show the CBA was in effect before September 2018 and so her claims arising between April and September could not 27 arise from a CBA and are not preempted by LMRA. See PAGA Oppo. 1:12-17, 2:4-15. But those 1 and be resolved by reference to federal law.” Id. at 1151-52 (citing Luek, 471 U.S. at 210). “A 2 state rule that purports to define the meaning or scope of a term in a contract suit therefore is pre- 3 empted by federal labor law.” Id. at 1152 (quoting Luek, 471 U.S. at 210). However, Section 301 4 does not “broadly . . . pre-empt nonnegotiable rights conferred on individual employees as a 5 matter of state law.” Id. Claims alleging violations of statutory rights to minimum wage, work 6 hours, pay periods, and paid or unpaid leave “will not necessarily be preempted, even when a 7 plaintiff is covered by a CBA” because those areas are “well within the traditional police power of 8 the states.” Id. (citation omitted). 9 There is a two-step test to determine whether a claim is “grounded in a CBA” and therefore 10 preempted by the LMRA. Alaska Airlines, 898 F.3d at 920-21. First, courts “evaluate the ‘legal 11 character’ of the claim by asking whether it seeks purely to vindicate a right or duty created by the 12 CBA itself.” Id. at 921 (quoting Livadas v. Bradshaw, 512 U.S. 107, 123 (1994)). Courts ask 13 “whether the asserted cause of action involves a right that exists solely as a result of the CBA.” 14 Curtis, 913 F.3d at 1151 (citation and brackets omitted). If the answer is yes, “the claim is 15 preempted and [the] analysis ends there.” Id. at 1153 (citation and brackets omitted). 16 If the answer is no, the next inquiry asks if “a plaintiff’s state law right is substantially 17 dependent on analysis of the CBA, which turns on whether the claim cannot be resolved by simply 18 looking to versus interpreting the CBA.” Id. at 1151 (citation, brackets, and internal quotation 19 marks omitted). “‘Interpretation’ is construed narrowly; ‘it means something more than 20 “consider,” “refer to,” or “apply.”’” Alaska Airlines, 898 F.3d at 921 (citations omitted). At the 21 second step of the preemption analysis, “claims are only preempted to the extent there is an active 22 dispute over ‘the meaning of contract terms.’” Id. (quoting Livadas, 512 U.S. at 124). 23 A. Overtime 24 Chatman’s overtime claims stem from WeDriveU’s alleged failure to pay overtime wages, 25 in violation of California Labor Code sections 510 and 1194, along with alleged violations of 26 sections 201, 202, and 203 for waiting time penalties. Class Compl. ¶¶ 75-90. 27 Although Labor Code section 510 provides for overtime compensation, there is a statutory Section[] 510 . . . do[es] not apply to an employee covered by a valid collective 1 bargaining agreement if the agreement expressly provides for the wages, hours of 2 work, and working conditions of the employees, and if the agreement provides premium wage rates for all overtime hours worked and a regular hourly rate of pay 3 for those employees of not less than 30 percent more than the state minimum wage. 4 Cal. Lab. Code § 514. Chatman’s CBA meets each of those requirements. See Request for Jud. 5 Notice Ex. A at 27-28 (wages, not less than 30 percent more than state minimum wage); 6 (hours 6 of work); 6-7, 9, 17-18, 28 (working conditions); 6-7 (premium overtime). Because it is 7 undisputed that Chatman is covered by that CBA, the exception in section 514 applies and she is 8 not entitled to overtime compensation under section 510. Therefore, any right she has to overtime 9 wages “exists solely as a result of the CBA and therefore is preempted under § 301.” Curtis, 913 10 F.3d at 1154 (internal citation and quotation marks omitted); see also Giles, 2022 WL 3370793, at 11 *4 (finding statutory overtime claims preempted by CBA where plaintiff was covered by valid 12 CBA); Fennix, 2020 WL 6462394, at *3 (same); Nettles v. Paramedics Logistics Operating Co., 13 LLC, No. 21-CV-08895-MMC, 2022 WL 137631, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 14, 2022) (same). The 14 related claims underlying her PAGA cause of action are preempted for the same reasons, as is her 15 claim under Labor Code section 1194,9 which simply provides remedies for violations of statutory 16 overtime rights. 17 Chatman’s other overtime wage claims concern whether she was paid on time and in the 18 proper amounts for her overtime hours.10 See Cal. Lab. Code § 201 (providing for immediate 19 payment of wages upon discharge or layoff); id. § 202 (providing for immediate payment of 20 wages upon resignation); id. § 203 (providing for penalties after failure to pay wages within a 21 required period of time). “[T] he underlying character of the[se] claim[s],” each relies on 22 Chatman’s right to overtime wages, which in turn arises from the rights conferred upon her by her 23 24 9 Labor Code section 1194 provides, “Notwithstanding any agreement to work for a lesser wage, any employee receiving less than the legal minimum wage or the legal overtime compensation 25 applicable to the employee is entitled to recover in a civil action the unpaid balance of the full amount of this minimum wage or overtime compensation.” Cal. Lab. Code § 1194(a). 26 10 It is not clear from the complaint that Chatman can state a cause of action under the statutes that 27 relate to payment of wages after termination because Chatman’s complaint suggests she is a 1 CBA. Radcliff, 519 F. Supp. at 748. For example, Chatman’s section 201 claim—presumably 2 that she was not immediately paid her properly calculated overtime compensation upon discharge 3 or layoff, though she does not allege she was discharged or laid off—relies on the fact that she had 4 the right to certain overtime compensation under the CBA. Because the section 201 claim relies 5 on Chatman’s rights to overtime compensation, it is derivative of her preempted section 510 claim 6 and is also preempted by LMRA § 301. See id. The same is true of the other overtime claims. 7 Because all of Chatman’s claims related to overtime compensation, including violation of 8 overtime laws as basis for her PAGA suit, are preempted by LMRA § 301, WeDriveU’s motion 9 for judgment on the pleadings is GRANTED as to Chatman’s overtime claims. 10 B. Meal Periods 11 Chatman’s meal period claims allege that WeDriveU failed to provide required meal 12 periods under California Labor Code sections 226.7 and 512. Class Compl. 33:4-8; ¶¶ 91-94. 13 Labor Code section 512(a) provides a default rule for meal periods.11 Subsection (e) 14 provides that the default rule does not apply to employees “covered by a valid collective 15 bargaining agreement,” which is defined as one that expressly provides for the wages, hours of work, and working conditions of 16 employees, and expressly provides for meal periods for those employees, final and 17 binding arbitration of disputes concerning application of its meal period provisions, premium wage rates for all overtime hours worked, and a regular hourly rate of pay 18 of not less than 30 percent more than the state minimum wage rate. 19 Cal. Lab. Code § 512(e). Chatman’s CBA meets most of these requirements. See Request for 20 Jud. Notice Ex. A at 27-28 (wages, not less than 30 percent more than state minimum wage); 6 21 (hours of work); 6-7, 9, 17-18, 28 (working conditions); 22-24 (final and binding arbitration); 6-7 22 (premium overtime). 23 But the parties dispute whether the CBA “expressly provides for meal periods” for covered 24 11 “An employer shall not employ an employee for a work period of more than five hours per day 25 without providing the employee with a meal period of not less than 30 minutes, except that if the total work period per day of the employee is no more than six hours, the meal period may be 26 waived by mutual consent of both the employer and employee. An employer shall not employ an employee for a work period of more than 10 hours per day without providing the employee with a 27 second meal period of not less than 30 minutes, except that if the total hours worked is no more 1 employees. See Cal. Lab. Code § 512(e). The dispute turns on the interpretation of the provision, 2 “Any employee deprived of the full thirty (30) minute unpaid lunch period; such employee shall 3 be paid one (1) hour of straight-time pay in addition to any other pay for the day.” Req. for Jud. 4 Notice Ex. A at 7. Chatman asserts that this does not provide for meal periods, while WeDriveU 5 counters that this term creates rights to meal periods by describing the consequences of not 6 providing a meal period. See Rem. Mot. 6:22-28; PAGA Oppo. 5:3-6; see also Rem. Oppo. 6 n.1. 7 I must analyze whether the CBA expressly provides for meal periods to determine whether 8 the statutory exception in Labor Code section 512(e) applies to Chatman’s claims, so that I may 9 address whether Chatman’s meal period rights are grounded in the CBA and exist solely as a 10 result of the CBA. See Curtis, 913 F.3d at 1151. If the CBA expressly provides for meal periods 11 so the statutory exception in section 512(e) applies, then Chatman’s meal period rights “exist[] 12 solely as a result of the CBA and therefore [are] preempted under § 301.” Id. at 1154. 13 But even if the answer is no, Chatman’s meal period claims under Labor Code section 512 14 are still preempted by LMRA § 301. That is because I would move onto the second step of the 15 preemption analysis and ask whether her meal period rights are “substantially dependent on 16 analysis of the CBA.” Id. At this step, claims are preempted “to the extent that there is an active 17 dispute over ‘the meaning of contract terms.’” Alaska Airlines, 898 F.3d at 921 (quoting Livadas, 18 512 U.S. at 124). Here the parties actively dispute the meaning of the provision outlining 19 consequences for not providing meal periods. To determine which party is right, and whether 20 Chatman is entitled to relief, I would have to interpret that term and other CBA provisions. For 21 that reason, the meal period claims arising under Labor Code section 512 would be preempted at 22 the second step of LMRA preemption analysis, even if they are not preempted at the first. 23 For similar reasons, Chatman’s meal period claims under Labor Code section 226.7 are 24 also preempted by LMRA § 301. Labor Code section 226.7 provides a default rule for off-duty 25 meal periods along with penalty wages if employers fail to provide those meal periods. Cal. Lab. 26 Code § 226.7(b), (c), (d). The rights do “not apply to an employee who is exempt from meal . . . 27 period requirements pursuant to other state laws, including, but not limited to, a statute or 1 Chatman is exempt from meal period requirements pursuant to another state law—Labor Code 2 section 512(e)—I would have to interpret the meal period provision in the CBA. The allegation, 3 then, would be preempted at the second step of LMRA § 301 preemption analysis, even if it is not 4 preempted at the first step. See Alaska Airlines, 898 F.3d at 921. 5 Because Chatman’s meal period claims are preempted by § 301, I GRANT WeDriveU’s 6 motion for judgment on the pleadings as to the meal period claims. 7 C. Sick Leave 8 Chatman also alleges violations of her sick leave rights under California Labor Code 9 sections 201-04, 233, and 246. She asserts she was paid at the incorrect rate of pay for her sick 10 leave because it was based on her hourly pay instead of her regular pay rate and did not include 11 overtime premiums. Class Compl. ¶¶ 107-12. She also asserts she was not paid for her vested 12 sick day wages. Id. 13 Labor Code section 246 provides that an “employee” is “entitled to paid sick days as 14 specified in this section.” Cal. Lab. Code § 246. Section 245.5 further provides that “[e]mployee” 15 in section 246 does not include workers covered by a valid collective bargaining agreement if the agreement expressly 16 provides for the wages, hours of work, and working conditions of employees, and 17 expressly provides for paid sick days or a paid leave or paid time off policy that permits the use of sick days for those employees, final and binding arbitration of 18 disputes concerning the application of its paid sick days provisions, premium wage rates for all overtime hours worked, and regular hourly rate of pay of not less than 19 30 percent more than the state minimum wage rate. 20 Id. § 245.5(a)(1). Chatman’s CBA meets each of those requirements. See Request for Jud. Notice 21 Ex. A at 27-28 (wages, not less than 30 percent more than state minimum wage); 6 (hours of 22 work); 6-7, 9, 17-18, 28 (working conditions); 16 (paid sick days); 22-24 (final and binding 23 arbitration); 6-7 (premium overtime). Because Chatman is undisputedly covered by that CBA, she 24 is not an “employee” entitled to sick days under Labor Code section 246. See id. Therefore, any 25 right to paid sick leave does not come from the statute, but rather from the CBA itself. Her section 26 246 claims (and related PAGA assertions) are therefore preempted by the LMRA, for the same 27 reasons that the overtime claims described above are preempted. See Curtis, 913 F.3d at 1154 1 § 301” (internal citation and quotation marks omitted)); cf. Dignity Health v. Dep’t of Indus. Rels., 2 Div. of Lab. Standards Enf’t, 445 F. Supp. 3d 491, 501-04 (N.D. Cal. 2020) (determining sick 3 leave claims were not preempted where sick leave provisions in CBA did not apply to the 4 plaintiffs). 5 Chatman’s other sick leave wage claims concern whether she was paid on time in the 6 proper amounts for her sick days and vested wages after termination.12 See Cal. Lab. Code § 201 7 (providing for immediate payment of wages upon discharge or layoff); § 202 (providing for 8 immediate payment of wages upon resignation); § 203 (providing for penalties after failure to pay 9 wages within a required period of time); § 204 (providing for wages paid in semimonthly 10 payments); and § 233 (providing that employers must permit workers to use sick days for outlined 11 reasons). “[T] he underlying character of the[se] claim[s]” rely on Chatman’s underlying right to 12 sick day wages, which itself arises from the rights conferred upon her by her CBA. Radcliff, 519 13 F. Supp. at 748. For example, Chatman’s section 201 claim—presumably that she was not 14 immediately paid her vested sick day wages upon discharge or layoff, though she does not allege 15 she was discharged or laid off—relies on the fact that she accrued sick days through her rights in 16 the CBA. The character of the alleged section 201 violation requires understanding and applying 17 Chatman’s rights to sick days as provided by the CBA. The same is true of the other sick day 18 related claims. For that reason, they are derivative of her section 246 claim, and therefore also 19 preempted by the LMRA. See id. 20 Because all of Chatman’s sick leave claims are preempted by LMRA § 301, I GRANT 21 WeDriveU’s motion for judgment on the pleadings as to those claims. 22 D. PAGA 23 Chatman’s PAGA action relies in part on the alleged violations of California labor statutes 24 providing rights for overtime, meal period, and sick leave compensation. Because her “PAGA 25 claims for civil penalties are, in part, derivative of [her] own overtime and meal period [and sick 26 leave] claims,” and those underlying claims are preempted by LMRA § 301, the PAGA cause of 27 1 action is also preempted as to those claims. Radcliff, 519 F. Supp. 3d at 748-49 (citing Curtis, 913 2 F.3d at 1150 n.3). Though Radcliff is not binding authority, I find its reasoning persuasive 3 because it accords with the function of PAGA, which provides civil penalties for the violation of 4 underlying law. Where there is no violation of the underlying law because the rights did not arise 5 from the law but from the CBA, there is no basis for the PAGA claim. 6 Chatman’s PAGA claims also relied on other alleged violations, including alleged 7 violations of minimum wage, rest periods, reporting time, time sheets, and other rights. “[I]f there 8 are multiple claims underlying [a] sole PAGA claim, . . . courts consider the preemption issue for 9 each claim separately.” Nettles, 2022 WL 137631, at *1 (quoting Jimenez v. Young’s Market Co., 10 LLC, No. 21-cv-02410-MEC, 2021 WL 59990821, at *7 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 20, 2021)). Neither 11 party argues or presents authority showing that these other underlying claims are preempted by 12 LMRA § 301. The PAGA cause of action is not preempted concerning these underlying state law 13 claims. See, e.g., Sarmiento v. Sealy, Inc., 367 F. Supp. 3d 1131, 1146 (N.D. Cal. 2019) (finding 14 plaintiff’s PAGA claims were not preempted by LMRA where they were derivative of other, non- 15 preempted claims). 16 Therefore, WeDriveU’s motion for judgment on the pleadings in the PAGA case is 17 GRANTED as to the underlying claims of overtime, meal periods, and sick leave, and DENIED to 18 the extent that it sought judgment based on the other underlying claims. 19 IV. Leave to Amend 20 Leave to amend should be freely granted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15, but 21 “need not be granted where the amendment: (1) prejudices the opposing party; (2) is sought in bad 22 faith; (3) produces an undue delay in litigation; or (4) is futile.” Gall v. City of San Jose, No. C 23 08-00120 JW, 2008 WL 5046296, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 25, 2008). 24 Here, it is clear from the CBA that Chatman’s overtime, meal period, and sick leave rights 25 “exist[] solely as a result of the CBA” and so are preempted by LMRA § 301. Curtis, 913 F.3d at 26 1152-53 (citations omitted). Chatman conceded in her briefs that she was covered by the CBA 27 (for the relevant period after December 22, 2018, as discussed in this order) and does not contest 1 Therefore, leave to amend would be futile because Chatman cannot assert additional facts that 2 would change this finding. Those claims are dismissed with prejudice. Her other contentions 3 remain. See, e.g., Sarmiento, 367 F. Supp. 3d at 1146. 4 V. Motion to Remand 5 Finally, Chatman moved to remand the PAGA action to state court based on lack of 6 jurisdiction. See Rem. Mot. Exercising proper subject matter jurisdiction over the PAGA case, 7 supra Discussion.II, I granted judgment on the pleadings to the defendant to the extent that the 8 PAGA cause of action relied on underlying preempted claims, supra Discussion.III. 9 I have supplemental jurisdiction over the PAGA case to the extent that it relies on non- 10 preempted state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367. But I have “discretion to remand 11 supplemental claims in a properly removed case to state court when none of the federal claims are 12 remaining, upon a proper determination that retaining jurisdiction over the case would be 13 inappropriate.” Radcliff, 519 F. Supp. 3d at 746-47 (citations omitted) (quoting Harrell v. 20th 14 Century Ins. Co., 934 F.2d 203, 205 (9th Cir. 1991)); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) (outlining 15 considerations governing a district court's decision to decline to exercise supplemental 16 jurisdiction). Retaining jurisdiction here would be inappropriate because I have “dismissed all 17 claims over which [I have] original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Therefore, I GRANT 18 Chatman’s Motion to Remand, in part, and remand the PAGA cause of action and its remaining 19 underlying claims. 20 I also have supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims in the purported 21 class action and for the same reasons, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those 22 claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). I sua sponte remand to state court the remaining non-preempted, 23 state law claims in the class case. See Young v. Securitas Security Svcs. USA, Inc., No. 17-CV- 24 05342-JCS, 2018 WL 1142190, at *8 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 2, 2018) (dismissing claims preempted by 25 LMRA and sua sponte remanding to state court all remaining claims as they arose under state law 26 and were not preempted). 27 CONCLUSION 1 GRANTED and Chatman’s motion to remand the PAGA case is GRANTED in part. The 2 || remaining claims in both cases are remanded to the San Mateo Superior Court. Judgment shall be 3 || entered accordingly. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 Dated: October 28, 2022 \ 7 ® Hiam H. Orrick 8 United States District Judge 9 10 11 12 13 15 16 = 17 Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28