Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Benjamin Rubio, a former hourly warehouse clerk for HP Hood, LLC, sued over wage-and-hour violations, partly under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA); the case was removed from state court in December 2024. His Second Amended Complaint (SAC) pleads three claims. The first is a Labor Code § 226 wage-statement claim for non-exempt California employees whose wage statements did not identify the rate and hours for certain hourly wages, beginning November 12, 2023. The second is a Labor Code § 246 sick-pay claim for employees paid shift differentials during sick or PTO periods whose employment ended at any time from August 30, 2022. The third is a PAGA claim based on wage-statement, expense-reimbursement, meal-and-rest-break, premium-pay and waiting-time theories.
HP Hood moved to dismiss. It argued that the § 226 claim is time-barred because its non-derivative theory cannot relate back to the earlier derivative claim. It argued that the sick-pay claim is completely preempted by Labor Management Relations Act § 301, and unexhausted, because Rubio is covered by a Teamsters Local 150 collective bargaining agreement (CBA). It argued that the PAGA claim lacks supporting facts. The court judicially noticed the CBA and Rubio's PAGA notice and, after supplemental briefing, treated the sick-pay challenge as a Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings.
The Court’s Holding
The court denied the motion as to the wage-statement claim. It adhered to its earlier ruling that the non-derivative § 226 theory, which asks whether the wage statement itself contains the required information, relates back to the original complaint under Rule 15(c)(1). It acknowledged HP Hood's point that the theories involve different proof. It rejected the arguments that the unpublished decision in Stoddart v. Express Services was unpersuasive because it was unpublished, only high-level, and involved an added rather than dismissed claim. The court found Stoddart's reasoning persuasive, though not controlling.
The court granted the motion as to sick pay. Under the Ninth Circuit's Burnside test, it held that the CBA meets all five criteria of Labor Code § 245.5(a)(1), so § 246 does not apply and the sick-leave right exists solely under the CBA, consistent with Shanley v. Tracy Logistics. Rubio disputed only whether the CBA provides final and binding arbitration. The court held that a joint panel whose majority decision is final, with a neutral arbitrator only on deadlock, satisfies the statute, and that Renteria-Hinojosa v. Sunsweet Growers did not address § 245.5. The claim is therefore preempted and can proceed only through the CBA process. Rubio also did not dispute that he skipped the grievance procedure, which is an independent basis for dismissal.
The court granted the motion as to PAGA. The expense-reimbursement, meal-and-rest-break and waiting-time theories were pleaded only as legal conclusions, and a generic allegation of uniform policy did not satisfy Rule 8. Rubio also conceded that PAGA penalties for the new sick-pay and stand-alone § 226 theories were not timely exhausted. Rubio may, within 30 days, file a Third Amended Complaint limited to the wage-statement class claims and the three PAGA theories. The class certification motion was denied as moot, and the parties must propose a certification schedule within 45 days.
Key Takeaways
- A non-derivative § 226 wage-statement theory was held to relate back to an earlier derivative § 226 claim, even though the theories require different proof.
- A CBA meeting all five criteria of Labor Code § 245.5(a)(1) takes covered employees outside § 246, making their sick-pay claims subject to complete LMRA § 301 preemption.
- A joint labor-management panel with a neutral arbitrator only upon deadlock was held to provide final and binding arbitration under § 245.5.
- PAGA theories need concrete supporting facts, not statutory labels or a bare allegation of a uniform policy.
- A preempted claim is also subject to dismissal if the plaintiff did not exhaust the CBA grievance procedure.
Why It Matters
This is an unreported district court order, so it is persuasive at most and not binding precedent. Its notable steps are treating Renteria-Hinojosa as not controlling because it did not consider § 245.5, and resolving the contested meaning of final and binding arbitration against the plaintiff. It also shows an unpublished decision from the same court, Stoddart, carrying persuasive weight on relation back.
The order tests only the pleadings. No class has been certified, the merits of any sick-pay grievance were not decided, and whether Rubio can plead facts for the three PAGA theories remains open.