Cesar Moreno v. Utiliquest, LLC, 29 F.4th 567

Moreno, a Lead Field Technician at UtiliQuest (2007–2018), collected co‑worker signatures in 2017 releasing union rights after management promised a 10% raise to each signer.
UtiliQuest gave Moreno a 10% raise but did not give raises to the other employees; Moreno repeatedly complained and was fired in February 2018 after alleged false accusations by HR.
Moreno sued in federal court asserting state‑law claims: intentional misrepresentation, fraud, whistleblower retaliation, and wrongful termination in violation of public policy; he also asserted wage‑and‑hour claims (travel time and uninterrupted meal breaks).
The district court dismissed the termination‑related claims as preempted by the NLRA (Garmon preemption) and dismissed the wage‑and‑hour claims on 12(b)(6) grounds; Moreno appealed.
While the appeal was pending, a California Superior Court approved a class settlement releasing wage‑and‑hour claims for affected UtiliQuest employees; Moreno did not opt out.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed: (1) termination‑related state claims are Garmon‑preempted because the alleged employer conduct is arguably covered by Sections 7 and 8 of the NLRA; and (2) Moreno’s wage‑and‑hour claims are precluded by the state court settlement under full faith and credit/claim preclusion principles.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether state‑law termination claims are preempted by the NLRA (Garmon)	Moreno: state claims protect local interests; his complaints were personal, not "concerted," and he was a statutory supervisor excluded from NLRA coverage	UtiliQuest: alleged conduct (promising raises to induce waiver of union rights and firing for advocacy) is arguably protected/prohibited under §§7/8; NLRB has exclusive competence; NLRB could find Moreno an employee	Held: Preempted — the conduct is arguably covered by NLRA; local‑interest exception fails; NLRB could find the activity concerted; Moreno is arguably an employee
Whether wage‑and‑hour claims are barred by the California class settlement (claim preclusion / Full Faith and Credit)	Moreno: argues he implicitly opted out or should be allowed a late opt‑out	UtiliQuest: state court settlement released the claims; Moreno received notice and did not opt out	Held: Precluded — California final judgment releasing class claims is entitled to full faith and credit; Moreno did not opt out and settlement procedures were adequate

San Diego Bldg. Trades Council v. Garmon, 359 U.S. 236 (federal courts must defer to the NLRB when activity is arguably protected or prohibited by the NLRA)
Chamber of Commerce of the U.S. v. Brown, 554 U.S. 60 (describing categories of NLRA implicit preemption)
United Ass’n of Journeymen & Apprentices v. Borden, 373 U.S. 690 (state‑law labels do not control preemption inquiry; state claims preempted where facts arguably support NLRA violation)
Milne Employees Ass’n v. Sun Carriers, Inc., 960 F.2d 1401 (9th Cir.) (fraud claim survived preemption where misrepresentations did not implicate NLRA)
Bassette v. Stone Container Corp., 25 F.3d 757 (9th Cir.) (wrongful termination claim preempted where employer conduct arguably violated NLRA)
NLRB v. City Disposal Sys. Inc., 465 U.S. 822 (definition and limits of "concerted activity")
Mike Yurosek & Son, Inc., 53 F.3d 261 (9th Cir.) (individual acts can be "concerted" if they logically grow out of prior group activity)
Int’l Longshoremen’s Ass’n v. Davis, 476 U.S. 380 (standard for showing activity is "arguably" protected under NLRA)
Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. San Diego Cnty. Dist. Council of Carpenters, 436 U.S. 180 (local‑interest exception to Garmon preemption and balancing test)
Ky. River Cmty. Care, Inc., 532 U.S. 706 (definition of statutory "supervisor" under the NLRA)
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Epstein, 516 U.S. 367 (Full Faith and Credit requires federal courts to respect state‑court class settlement judgments)