Hall v. Live Nation Worldwide, Inc.
146 F. Supp. 3d 1187
C.D. Cal.2015Background
- Plaintiffs Todd Hall and Dan Rivera sued Live Nation in California state court alleging unpaid final wages, minimum/overtime wages, inaccurate wage statements, UCL and civil penalty claims arising from work on a live televised event on January 15, 2015 at the Hollywood Palladium.
- Live Nation removed to federal court, invoking § 301 LMRA preemption and produced a June 22, 2015 collective bargaining agreement (2015 CBA) that expressly covered work from October 1, 2014–September 30, 2016 and included wage timing and grievance/arbitration provisions.
- Plaintiffs alleged no valid CBA governed their January 2015 work (arguing the prior 2013 CBA had expired and the 2015 CBA post-dated the work); Live Nation argued the 2015 CBA applied retroactively.
- The 2015 CBA contains explicit waivers/alternate provisions for California Labor Code timing rules for final wages and payroll (including § 201, § 204) and requires exhaustion of a multi-step grievance/arbitration procedure for CBA disputes.
- The court took judicial notice of the 2015 CBA and related corporate filings, concluded the 2015 CBA applied retroactively to plaintiffs’ employment, and found plaintiffs’ wage claims were preempted by § 301 LMRA and subject to the CBA’s grievance/arbitration procedures.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiffs' Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether any CBA governed plaintiffs’ January 2015 employment | No — 2013 CBA expired Sept. 2014 and 2015 CBA post-dates work | 2015 CBA applies retroactively to Oct. 1, 2014–Sept. 30, 2016 | 2015 CBA applied retroactively and governed employment |
| Whether Labor Code § 201/§ 203 final-wage claim is preempted by § 301 | § 201.5 creates nonwaivable state-law rights for these productions | 2015 CBA expressly waives/apply alternate wage-timing under § 201.5/§ 201.9 and § 204 | Claim preempted: CBA contains clear waiver and alternate timing; § 301 governs |
| Whether minimum/overtime claims under §§ 510/1194 are preempted | State-law wage claims enforceable independently of CBA | § 514/§ 510/§ 204 permit CBA to set alternative workweeks/overtime; 2015 CBA meets § 514 and displaces Labor Code provisions | Claim preempted: CBA governs wages/overtime and thus § 301 applies |
| Whether plaintiffs may litigate in court without exhausting CBA grievance/arbitration | Plaintiffs did not exhaust and contend CBA executed after pay period so exhaustion excused | CBA contains mandatory multi-step grievance and arbitration procedure that must be exhausted before suit | Plaintiffs failed to plead exhaustion; claims dismissed (with leave to amend) and exhaustion required if federal CBA claims asserted |
Key Cases Cited
- Franchise Tax Bd. v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1983) (§ 301 preemption can displace state contract claims)
- Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386 (U.S. 1987) (§ 301 governs claims founded on collective-bargaining agreements)
- Allis-Chalmers Corp. v. Lueck, 471 U.S. 202 (U.S. 1985) (state-law claims are preempted when resolution requires interpretation of CBA)
- Burnside v. Kiewit Pac. Corp., 491 F.3d 1053 (9th Cir. 2007) (two-part test for § 301 preemption: state-law right independent of CBA; and whether claim is substantially dependent on CBA analysis)
- United Paperworkers Int’l Union v. Misco, Inc., 484 U.S. 29 (U.S. 1987) (exhaustion of contractual grievance/arbitration procedures before court relief)
- DelCostello v. Int’l Broth. of Teamsters, 462 U.S. 151 (U.S. 1983) (employees generally must attempt to exhaust CBA grievance/arbitration remedies before suing)
- Gregory v. SCIE, L.E.G., 317 F.3d 1050 (9th Cir. 2003) (CBA must include clear and unmistakable waiver to displace state-law rights)