Giles v. Canus Corporation

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: August 16, 2022
• Docket: 3:22-cv-03097
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 MARTINEZ ANDRE GILES, Case Nos. 22-cv-03097-MMC 22-cv-03098-MMC 8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S 9 v. MOTIONS TO REMAND; GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTIONS FOR 10 CANUS CORPORATION, et al., JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS; AFFORDING PLAINTIFF LEAVE TO 11 Defendants. AMEND; DIRECTING DEFENDANT TO RE-SUBMIT COURTESY COPIES OF 12 NOTICE OF REMOVAL IN SINGLE- SIDED FORMAT 13

14 Before the Court are four motions, each filed June 23, 2022: (1) “Motion to 15 Remand Case to State Court” filed by plaintiff Martinez Andre Giles (“Giles”) in Case No. 16 22-cv-03097-MMC (hereinafter, “Class Action”); (2) “Motion for Judgment on the 17 Pleadings” filed by defendant Canus Corporation (“Canus”) in Case No. 22-cv-03098- 18 MMC (hereinafter, “PAGA Action”); (3) “Motion to Remand Case to State Court” filed by 19 Giles in the Class Action; and (4) “Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings” filed by Canus 20 in the PAGA Action. The motions have been fully briefed.1 Having read and considered 21 the papers filed in support of and in opposition to the motions, the Court rules as follows.2 22 BACKGROUND 23 In the above-titled related actions, Giles, who was employed by Canus as a “non- 24 25 1 On June 1, 2022, defendant PG&E Corporation (“PG&E”) filed statements of 26 non-opposition to Canus’s motions for judgment on the pleadings and requests dismissal of Giles’s claims and entry of judgment in favor of both Canus and PG&E. 27 1 exempt employee” from January 2015 to May 2021 (see First Amended Class Action 2 Compl. (hereinafter, “FCAC”) ¶ 4;3 see also Representative Action Compl. (hereinafter, 3 “PAGA Complaint”) ¶ 7), alleges Canus “regularly failed” to pay him his “correct wages,” 4 including “minimum and overtime wages,” failed to provide him with legally required “off- 5 duty meal and rest breaks,” and failed to issue him “complete and accurate wage 6 statements” (see FCAC ¶¶ 14, 20-23; see also PAGA Compl. ¶¶ 13-14, 17, 23, 25). 7 Giles further alleges that, in or around April 2021, he complained to Canus about its 8 employment practices, and that, as a result, Canus “retalia[ed]” against him by 9 terminating his employment. (See FCAC ¶¶ 24-25.) 10 Based on the above allegations, Giles, on February 23, 2022, filed a complaint in 11 the Superior Court of California, in and for the County of Contra Costa (hereinafter, 12 “Class Action Complaint”), asserting, on behalf of himself and a putative class, the 13 following eight Causes of Action: (1) “Unlawful Business Practices,” (2) “Failure to Pay 14 Minimum Wages,” (3) “Failure to Pay Overtime Compensation,” (4) “Failure to Provide 15 Required Meal Periods,” (5) “Failure to Provide Required Rest Periods,” (6) “Failure to 16 Provide Accurate Itemized Statements,” (7) “Failure to Pay Wages When Due,” and 17 (8) “Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy.”4 The following day, Giles filed 18 another complaint in the Superior Court of California, in and for the County of Contra 19 Costa, asserting a claim under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (“PAGA”), 20 which claim is predicated on defendants’ alleged violations of “California Labor Code 21 §§ 201, 202, 203, 204 et seq., 210, 221, 226(a), 226.7, 351, 510, 512, 558(a)(1)(2), 1194, 22 1197.1, 1198, 1198.5, 2802, California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Section 11040, 23 3 The courtesy copies of Canus’s Notice of Removal, as well as the declarations 24 and exhibits, including the FCAC, filed in support thereof, were submitted in double-sided format. By order filed June 2, 2022, the Court directed Canus to re-submit the courtesy 25 copies in single-sided format. (See Doc. No. 16 (citing Standing Orders for Civil Cases Assigned to The Honorable Maxine M. Chesney ¶ 2).) To date, however, no such 26 documents have been submitted to the Court. Accordingly, Canus is again DIRECTED to re-submit the requisite courtesy copies, and to do so no later than August 19, 2022. 27 1 Subdivision 5(A)-(B), and the applicable Wage Order(s).” On May 12, 2022, Giles filed, 2 in the Class Action, his FCAC, reasserting the above-referenced eight claims alleged in 3 his initial Class Action Complaint. 4 On May 26, 2022, Canus removed both actions to federal court, on the ground that 5 the asserted Causes of Action are completely preempted by federal labor law, 6 specifically, § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act (“LMRA”), 28 U.S.C. § 185.5 7 LEGAL STANDARD 8 A. Motion to Remand 9 “If at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject 10 matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). The party 11 invoking the federal court’s removal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing federal 12 jurisdiction, see Emrich v. Toche Ross & Co., 846 F.2d 1190, 1195 (9th Cir. 1988), and 13 “federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the 14 first instance,” see Duncan v. Stuetzle, 76 F.3d 1480, 1485 (9th Cir. 1996) (internal 15 quotation and citation omitted). “To determine whether the removing party has met its 16 burden, a court may consider the contents of the removal petition and ‘summary- 17 judgment-type evidence.’” Tanious v. Gattoni, 533 F. Supp. 3d 770, 775 (N.D. Cal. 2021) 18 (quoting Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 372 F.3d 1115, 1117 (9th Cir. 2004)). 19 B. Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings 20 A Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings may be brought at any time 21 “[a]fter the pleadings are closed,” but “earlier enough not to delay trial.” See Fed. R. Civ. 22 P. 12(c). The standard applied to decide a Rule 12(c) motion is the same as the 23 standard used in a Rule 12(b) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. See Cafasso 24 v. Gen. Dynamics C4 Sys., Inc., 637 F.3d 1047, 1054 n.4 (9th Cir. 2011). “[J]udgment on 25 the pleadings is appropriate when, even if all allegations in the complaint are true, the 26 moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Westlands Water Dist. v. 27 1 Firebaugh Canal, 10 F.3d 667, 670 (9th Cir. 1993). In deciding the motion, a court may 2 consider “(1) exhibits to the non-moving party’s pleading, (2) documents that are referred 3 to in the non-moving party’s pleading, or (3) facts that are included in materials that can 4 be judicially noticed.” See Yang v. Dar Al-Handash Consultants, 250 Fed. App’x 771, 5 772 (9th Cir. 2007). The court need not automatically accept as true unreasonable 6 inferences, unwarranted deductions of fact, or conclusory legal allegations cast in the 7 form of factual allegations. See W. Mining Council v. Watt, 643 F.2d 618, 624 (9th Cir. 8 1981). 9 DISCUSSION 10 By his motions to remand, Giles seeks an order remanding both of the above-titled 11 actions to state court, on the ground that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over 12 his claims. 13 By its motions for judgment on the pleadings, Canus seeks an order granting entry 14 of judgment in his favor with respect to Giles’s minimum wage, overtime, and meal period 15 claims in their entirety, as well as on Giles’s wage statement, waiting time, wrongful 16 termination, and UCL claims to the extent those claims are derivative of the minimum 17 wage, overtime, and meal period claims. 18 “The Supreme Court ha[ving] instructed lower courts to resolve jurisdictional 19 issues before reaching the merits of a case,” see Rivera v. R.R. Retirement Bd., 262 F.3d 20 1005, 1008 (9th Cir. 2001), the Court first addresses Giles’s motions to remand. 21 A. Motions to Remand 22 In his motions to remand, Giles argues Canus “has failed to establish federal 23 jurisdiction under [§ 301 of the LMRA].” (See Mot. to Remand Class Action at 1:12-13; 24 Mot. to Remand PAGA Action at 1:13-14.) 25 Pursuant to § 301 of the LMRA, “[s]uits for violation of contracts between an 26 employer and a labor organization . . . may be brought in any district court of the United 27 States having jurisdiction of the parties.” See 29 U.S.C. § 185. “The preemptive force of 1 of a collective bargaining agreement [“CBA”], and any state claim whose outcome 2 depends on analysis of the terms of the agreement.” Newberry v. Pac. Racing Ass’n, 3 854 F.2d 1142, 1146 (9th Cir. 1988) (internal citation omitted). “Thus, if a state law claim 4 is completely preempted by . . . [§ 301], the state law cause of action necessarily 5 becomes a federal one and can be removed.” Milne Emps. Ass’n v. Sun Carriers, 960 6 F.2d 1401, 1406 (9th Cir. 1991).6 7 To determine whether a state law claim is preempted by § 301, the Ninth Circuit 8 employs a “two-step test.” See Curtis v. Irwin Indus., Inc., 913 F.3d 1146, 1152 (9th Cir. 9 2019). First, courts ask “whether the asserted cause of action involves a right conferred 10 upon an employee by virtue of state law, not by a CBA.” See Burnside v. Kiewit Pac. 11 Corp., 491 F.3d 1053, 1059 (9th Cir. 2007). “If the right exists solely as a result of the 12 CBA, then the claim is preempted.” Id. “If, however, the right exists independently of the 13 CBA,” the court then proceeds to the second step, by which it determines “whether [the 14 right] is nevertheless substantially dependent on analysis of a collective-bargaining 15 agreement,” see id. (internal quotation and citation omitted), a determination that “turns 16 on whether the claim cannot be resolved by simply ‘look[ing] to’ versus ‘interpreting’ the 17 CBA,” see Curtis, 913 F.3d at 1153 (alteration in original) (internal citation omitted) 18 (noting, at second step of analysis, “claims are only preempted to the extent there is an 19 active dispute over the meaning of contract terms” (internal quotation and citation 20 omitted)). 21 Here, in opposition to remand, Canus offers undisputed evidence that Giles, 22 during the course of his employment with Canus, was subject to the terms of two CBAs 23 between Canus and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local Union 24

25 6 Giles’s argument that § 301 preemption is merely an “affirmative defense” insufficient “to justify removal to federal court” is unavailing. (See Mot. to Remand Class 26 Action at 17:9-11; Mot. to Remand PAGA Action at 16:13-15); see also Caterpillar v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392-394 (1987) (holding “complete pre-emption” under § 301 is 27 exception to general rule that “a case may not be removed to federal court on the basis of 1 1245 (hereinafter, “Union”). (See Req. for Judicial Notice (“RJN”) Exs. A-C.)7 Based 2 thereon, Canus contends (1) Giles’s overtime and meal period claims are preempted by 3 § 301 at the first step of the above-referenced analysis, (2) Giles’s minimum wage claims 4 are preempted by § 301 at the second step of the analysis, and (3) Giles’s remaining 5 claims either are derivative of the foregoing claims or warrant the Court’s exercise of 6 supplemental jurisdiction. 7 As an initial matter, the Court is not persuaded by Giles’s argument that the 8 above-titled actions are subject to remand for the asserted reason that neither his FCAC 9 nor his PAGA Complaint “mention[s] the CBA[s]” and that his claims, as pleaded, are 10 based on alleged violations of state law. (See Mot. to Remand Class Action at 10:15-23; 11 see also Mot. to Remand PAGA Action at 9:22-10:2.) Although, under the “well-pleaded 12 complaint rule,” federal question jurisdiction generally exists only when a federal question 13 is presented on the face of a complaint, see Holman v. Laulo-Rowe Agency, 994 F.2d 14 666, 668 (9th Cir. 1993), where, as here, the asserted ground for removal is complete 15 preemption by the LMRA, a court may “properly look[] beyond the face of the complaint to 16 determine whether the . . . claim [is] in fact a section 301 claim for breach of a collective 17 bargaining agreement ‘artfully pleaded’ to avoid federal jurisdiction,” see Young v. 18 Anthony’s Fish Grottos, Inc., 830 F.2d 993, 997 (9th Cir. 1987); see also Cook v. Lindsay 19 Olive Growers, 911 F.2d 233, 237 (9th Cir. 1990) (noting, “[f]or preemption analysis, it is 20 not dispositive that . . . complaint is framed without reference to . . . CBA”). 21 The Court next turns to Canus’s arguments in opposition to remand. 22 // 23

24 7 Giles’s unopposed Request for Judicial Notice of the above-referenced CBAs is hereby GRANTED. See Hall v. Live Nation Worldwide, Inc., 146 F. Supp. 3d 1187, 1192- 25 93 (C.D. Cal. 2015) (taking judicial notice of CBA where defendant asserted plaintiff’s claims were completely preempted by LMRA). The first CBA covered the period of June 26 4, 2012, through May 31, 2020 (see id. Ex. B (hereinafter, “2012 CBA”), Ex. C (“Letter of Understanding” extending 2012 CBA through May 31, 2020), and the second CBA 27 covered the period of June 1, 2020, through May 31, 2026 (see id. Ex. A (hereinafter, 1 1. Failure to Pay Overtime Wages 2 Canus argues Giles’s overtime claims are preempted and thus are not subject to 3 remand because Giles’s right to overtime “exists solely as a result of the CBA[s].” (See 4 Opp. to Mot. to Remand Class Action at 7:16-17 (internal quotation and citation omitted); 5 see also Opp. to Mot. to Remand PAGA Action at 7:22-23.) As discussed below, the 6 Court agrees. 7 Section 510 of the California Labor Code sets forth the hours constituting overtime 8 hours and the rate of pay applicable thereto. See Cal. Lab. Code § 510. The Labor 9 Code, however, further provides:

10 Sections 510 and 511 do not apply to an employee covered by a valid collective bargaining agreement if the agreement expressly provides for the 11 wages, hours of work, and working conditions of the employees, and if the agreement provides premium wage rates for all overtime hours worked and 12 a regular hourly rate of pay for those employees of not less than 30 percent more than the state minimum wage. 13 14 See id. § 514. “By its terms, therefore, the default definition of overtime and overtime 15 rates in section 510 does not apply to an employee who is subject to a qualifying CBA.” 16 Curtis, 913 F.3d at 1153-54. Rather, under such circumstances, the employee’s “right to 17 overtime exists solely as a result of the CBA.” See id. at 1155 (internal quotation and 18 citation omitted) (finding, where CBAs at issue “me[t] the requirements of section 514,” 19 plaintiff’s overtime claim was preempted by LMRA).8 Here, it is undisputed that the 20 subject CBAs meet the requirements of section 514 (see 2012 CBA ¶¶ 4.01-4.12, Ex. A; 21 2020 CBA ¶¶ 4.01-4.12, Ex. A), and, consequently, Giles’s right to overtime exists solely 22 as a result thereof. 23 Accordingly, Giles’s overtime claims are preempted by § 301 of the LMRA. 24 // 25 8 Although Giles argues Curtis is distinguishable on the ground that “federal 26 jurisdiction was not challenged by the plaintiff in that case” (see Opp. to Mot. to Remand at 6:20-7:4), the Ninth Circuit expressly acknowledged therein that “a civil complaint 27 raising claims preempted by § 301 raises a federal question that can be removed to a 1 2. Failure to Provide Meal Periods 2 Canus argues Giles’s meal period claims are preempted because his right to meal 3 periods, like his right to overtime, exists solely as a result of the CBAs. (See Opp. to Mot. 4 to Remand Class Action at 8:22-23; see also Opp. to Mot. to Remand PAGA Action at 5 8:28-9:2.) Again, the Court agrees. 6 Section 512 of the California Labor Code sets forth requirements for providing 7 meal breaks to employees, see Cal. Labor Code § 512(a), and section 226.7 requires an 8 employer to pay “one additional hour of pay” to any employee who is not provided a 9 requisite meal break, see id. § 226.7. The Labor Code further provides, however, that 10 subdivision (a) of section 512 does not apply to an individual “employed in a construction 11 occupation” if “both of the following conditions are satisfied”:

12 (1) The employee is covered by a valid [CBA; and]

13 (2) The valid [CBA] expressly provides for the wages, hours of work, and working conditions of employees, and expressly provides for meal periods 14 for those employees, final and binding arbitration of disputes concerning application of its meal period provisions, premium wage rates for all 15 overtime hours worked, and a regular hourly rate of pay of not less than 30 percent more than the state minimum wage rate. 16 See id. § 512(e)-(f). Additionally, where an employee is exempt under section 512, such 17 employee likewise is exempt under section 226.7. See id. § 226.7(e) (providing section 18 226.7 does not apply to “an employee who is exempt from meal . . . period requirements 19 pursuant to other state laws”). 20 Here, Canus has submitted undisputed evidence that Giles was employed in a 21 construction occupation (see Decl. of Gregory Ricks in Supp. of Notice of Removal of 22 Class Action ¶ 3 (averring Giles “was employed as a Class II Construction 23 Coordinator/Inspector”)), and it is further undisputed that the subject CBAs meet the 24 above-quoted requirements under subsection (e) of section 512 (see 2012 CBA ¶¶ 4.01- 25 4.12, Ex. A; 2020 CBA ¶¶ 1.02, 4.01-4.12, Ex. A). Consequently, Giles’s “right to meal 26 periods exists solely as a result of the CBAs.” See Marquez v. Toll Glob. Forwarding, 27 804 Fed. App’x, 679, 680 (9th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation, citation, and alteration 1 omitted) (holding, under reasoning in Curtis, meal period claims are preempted by LMRA 2 where section 512(e) requirements are met); see also Coria v. Recology, Inc., 63 F. 3 Supp. 3d 1093, 1097 (N.D. Cal. 2014) (noting, “if [s]ection 512(e) applies, then [section] 4 512(a) does not apply, and [the] plaintiff’s claimed right to meal periods cannot be said to 5 be based on state law”); Rodriguez, 2022 WL 161892, at *4 (finding meal period claim 6 preempted by § 301 where CBA satisfied requirements of section 512(e)).9 7 Accordingly, Giles’s meal period claims are preempted by § 301 of the LMRA. 8 3. Failure to Pay Minimum Wages 9 As noted, with respect to Giles’s minimum wage claims, Canus does not argue 10 Giles’s right to minimum wages exists solely as a result of the applicable CBAs, see Cal. 11 Lab. Code § 1197 (making it “unlawful” to pay “lower wage than the minimum” provided 12 by law); rather, Canus contends resolution of said claims “substantially depends on an 13 analysis of the CBA[s],” specifically, an interpretation of the terms “actual time worked” 14 and “show-up pay,” as used in the CBAs (see Opp. to Mot. to Remand Class Action at 15 5:17-6:4; see also Opp. to Mot. to Remand PAGA Action at 5:25-6:11). The Court 16 agrees. 17 In particular, Giles alleges Canus failed to pay him for time worked “off the clock,” 18 including time spent “perform[ing] duties while on [his] meal break,” undergoing 19 “mandatory drug testing or . . . other testing,” and “submit[ting] to mandatory screening 20 questions prior to . . . clocking in[]” (see FCAC ¶ 9; PAGA Compl. ¶ 12); consequently, as 21 Canus points out, resolution of Giles’s minimum wage claims will “require an 22 9 Giles, pointing to California cases holding the statutory right to rest periods is 23 “non-waivable” by a CBA, contends his meal period claim is not preempted because, according to Giles, meal periods, like rest periods, “address some of the most basic 24 demands of an employee’s health and welfare.” (See Mot. to Remand Class Action at 19:4-24; see also Mot. to Remand PAGA Action at 18:8-28.) As one district court has 25 noted, however, meal period claims and rest period claims are distinguishable, in that the wage order governing rest periods, unlike the above-referenced meal period statutes, 26 “contains no exemption.” See Jones v. Sysco Ventura, Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-04116- SVW-AGR, 2021 WL 6104193, at *8 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 1, 2021) (holding, because “there is 27 no exemption” in any applicable statute or regulation, “a rest break claim arises out of 1 interpretation of the . . . terms ‘actual time worked’ and ‘show-up pay,’” as used in the 2 CBAs (see Opp. to Mot. to Remand Class Action at 5:19-6:4; see also 2012 CBA ¶ 4.05; 3 2020 CBA ¶ 4.05); Rodriguez v. Gonsalves & Santucci, Inc., Case No. 21-cv-07874-LB, 4 2022 WL 161892, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 18, 2022) (finding, where plaintiff alleged 5 “defendant failed to pay minimum wages for off-the-clock activity,” resolution of minimum 6 wage claim required, “[a]t a minimum, . . . interpretation of CBA terms such as ‘actual 7 hours worked’ and ‘show up expenses’”). 8 Accordingly, Giles’s minimum wage claims are preempted by § 301 of the LMRA. 9 4. Remaining Claims 10 As to Giles’s remaining causes of action, Canus argues such claims either are 11 derivative of the claims over which the Court has original jurisdiction or warrant the 12 Court’s exercise of supplemental jurisdiction. Specifically, Canus contends (1) Giles’s 13 wage statement, waiting time, wrongful termination, and UCL claims are, in part, 14 derivative of the claims that are preempted, and (2) the Court should exercise 15 supplemental jurisdiction over Giles’s rest period claims in their entirety, as well as the 16 wage statement, waiting time, wrongful termination, and UCL claims to the extent they 17 are not derivative of the preempted claims. (See Opp. to Mot. to Remand Class Action at 18 2:8-13; Opp. to Mot. to Remand PAGA Action at 2:11-16.) 19 As discussed above, Giles’s minimum wage, overtime, and meal period claims are 20 preempted by the LMRA; consequently, to the extent his wage statement, waiting time, 21 wrongful termination, and UCL claims are derivative thereof, those claims likewise are 22 preempted by the LMRA. See Vasquez v. Packaging Corp. of Am., Case No. 19-cv-1935 23 PSG (PLAx), 2019 WL 4543106, at *4 (C.D. Cal. June 7, 2019) (finding, where overtime 24 claim was preempted by LMRA, remaining claims likewise were preempted “to the extent 25 they [were] derivative of [the] overtime claim”). 26 As to Giles’s rest period claims, as well as his wage statement, waiting time, 27 wrongful termination, and UCL claims to the extent they are not derivative of the 1 a common nucleus of operative fact,” and, consequently, the Court finds it appropriate to 2 exercise supplemental jurisdiction over them. See Trs. of Contr. Indus. & Laborers 3 Health & Welfare Tr. v. Desert Valley Landscape & Maint., Inc., 333 F.3d 923, 925 (9th 4 Cir. 2003) (internal quotation and citation omitted) (holding “[s]upplemental jurisdiction” is 5 appropriate where federal and state law claims “‘derive from a common nucleus of 6 operative fact’ and are such that a plaintiff ‘would ordinarily be expected to try them in 7 one judicial proceeding’”). 8 6. Conclusion: Remand 9 In sum, to the extent Giles seeks an order remanding the above-titled cases to 10 state court, the motions to remand will be denied for the reasons stated above. 11 B. Motions for Judgment on the Pleadings 12 In its motions for judgment on the pleadings, Canus contends it is entitled to entry 13 of judgment in its favor with respect to Giles’s minimum wage, overtime, and meal 14 periods claims in their entirety, on the ground that said claims are statutorily barred and 15 completely preempted by the LMRA, as well as with respect to Giles’s wage statement, 16 waiting time, wrongful termination, and UCL claims to the extent they are derivative of the 17 preempted claims.10 18 As set forth above, the Court agrees that Giles’s minimum wage, overtime, and 19 meal periods claims, as well as his wage statement, waiting time, wrongful termination, 20 and UCL claims to the extent they are derivative thereof, are completely preempted by 21 22 10 Although there exists a split of authority among district courts as to whether a 23 party may seek judgment on the pleadings as to part of a claim, see Solis v. Am. Airlines, Inc., Case No. CV 19-10181 PSG (AFMx), 2021 WL 4893247, at *2 (C.D. Cal. July 27, 24 2021) (noting “district courts appear to be split on the issue” of whether party may seek judgment on the pleadings as to “part of a cause of action”), the Court finds more 25 persuasive those cases finding such relief permissible, see, e.g., FEC v. Adams, 558 F. Supp. 2d 982, 987 (C.D. Cal. 2008) (holding “[j]udgment on the pleadings may be 26 granted as to fewer than all . . . claims, or as to part of a claim”); Solis, 2021 WL 4893247, at *2 (finding motion for judgment on the pleadings as to “part of a cause of 27 action” permissible; noting “[t]o conclude otherwise would permit plaintiffs to evade Rule 1 the LMRA.'' Accordingly, Canus’s motions will be granted. Rather than entering 2 || judgment, however, the Court will dismiss said claims with leave to amend. See Carmen 3 || v.S.F. Unified Sch. Dist., 982 F. Supp. 1396, 1401 (N.D. Cal. 1997) (holding “[c]ourts 4 || have discretion to grant leave to amend in conjunction with 12(c) motions, and may 5 || dismiss causes of action rather than grant judgment”). 6 CONCLUSION 7 For the reasons stated above: 8 1. Giles’s Motions to Remand are hereby DENIED. 9 2. Canus’s Motions for Judgment on the Pleadings are hereby GRANTED as 10 || follows: 11 a. Giles’s minimum wage, overtime, and meal period claims are hereby 12 DISMISSED in their entirety. 5 13 b. Giles’s wage statement, waiting time, wrongful termination, and UCL 14 || claims are hereby DISMISSED to the extent said claims are derivative of the minimum 8 15 wage, overtime, and meal period claims. é 16 c. Giles is hereby afforded leave to amend for the purpose of pleading any G 17 || orall of the dismissed claims as LMRA claims. Any such amended pleading shall be filed 5 18 no later than September 13, 2022. 19 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 22 || Dated: August 16, 2022 fared, Cate 23 Uni 4 States District Judge 24 25 26 27 ‘1 In light of this finding, the Court does not address herein Canus’s alternative 2g || argument in support of judgment on Giles’s minimum wage claims.