Cardenas v. McLane Foodservices, Inc.
796 F. Supp. 2d 1246
| C.D. Cal. | 2011Background
- 39 current and former truck drivers sue McLane FoodService, alleging unpaid time, improper meal/rest breaks, and wage statement inaccuracies under California wage laws.
- Plaintiffs' FAC asserts violations of California Labor Code and UCL, plus PAGA on behalf of aggrieved employees.
- MFI removes to federal court; Plaintiffs file First Amended Complaint alleging wage and break violations and PAGA claims.
- Court grants partial summary judgment to Plaintiffs on the lawfulness of the piece-rate pay formula; denies other aspects of MFI’s and Plaintiffs’ cross-motions.
- Litigation posture culminates in an Amended Order addressing piece-rate legality, FAAAA preemption, restitution, and PAGA exhaustion; multiple related issues are decided in favor of Plaintiffs on some, and denied on others.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Piece-rate plan legality under California law | Cites Armenta to argue averaging cannot excuse unpaid pre/post-shift time | Claims the Core duties include pre/post-shift tasks and are compensated within Core pay | Plaintiffs' motion granted; piece-rate formula insufficient to compensate all time worked |
| FAAAA preemption of rest/meal breaks | Break laws not sufficiently related to price/route/service; safety exception possible | Break laws preempted if they affect prices/routes/services; safety exception may apply | Preemption denied; safety exception not satisfied; no summary judgment on preemption |
| Restitution under UCL | Requests restitution for alleged wage violations under UCL | Motion not timely under scheduling orders; not properly before court | Denied; restitution claim deemed late-filed under scheduling orders |
| PAGA exhaustion for Tracy distribution center | LWDA notice satisfied and aggrieved employees identified; Tracy claims included by representative notice | LWDA letter limited to southern California; Tracy employees not exhaustively noticed | Denied; PAGA exhaustion found as to plaintiffs; Tracy employees allowed through representative notice |
| Exhaustion of administrative remedies under PAGA generally | Notice allowed aggrieved employees to pursue penalties collectively | Notice must include all potential facts/theories; no future theories implied | Denied; notice sufficiently complied with to permit broader PAGA action |
Key Cases Cited
- Morales v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 504 U.S. 374 (U.S. 1992) (state action enforcing airline rates/routes can preempt under ADA/FAAAA; indirect effects considered)
- Rowe v. New Hampshire Motor Transp. Ass'n, 552 U.S. 364 (U.S. 2008) (preemption may be limited when effects on prices/routes/services are tenuous or remote)
- Mendonca v. Calif. Dep't of Transp., 152 F.3d 1184 (9th Cir. 1998) (FAAAA preemption not triggered by indirect effects on prices/routes/services; wage laws not preempted)
- American Trucking Associations, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 559 F.3d 1046 (9th Cir. 2009) (reaffirmed that preemption requires more than indirect/remote effects on prices/routes/services)
- Armenta v. Osmose, Inc., 135 Cal. App. 4th 314 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005) (California law prohibits averaging to justify minimum wage under wage orders)
- Fitz-Gerald v. SkyWest Airlines, Inc., 155 Cal. App. 4th 411 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) (state meal/rest break laws not preempted by ADA/FAAAA on safety grounds)