Jonathan Magana, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. Baja Construction Co., Inc.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 JONATHAN MAGANA, individually, and Case No. 25-cv-06889-JD on behalf of other members of the general 8 public similarly situated, ORDER RE REMAND Plaintiff, 9

v. 10

11 BAJA CONSTRUCTION CO., INC., Defendant. 12

13 14 Plaintiff Magana’s request to remand the case to California state court, Dkt. No. 9, is 15 denied. Magana’s third claim is for rest period violations under California Labor Code Section 16 226.7 and IWC Wage Order No. 16, Cal. Code Regs. tit. 8, § 11160(11). Dkt. No. 1-1, Ex. A at 17 14-15. The rest period provision in the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) that covered 18 Magana during his employment as a union member is identical to Wage Order No. 16 in the 19 rights, protections, and grievance resolution procedures it confers. See Dkt. No. 10-2, Ex. A at 18- 20 19 (CBA rest period clause). 21 Magana’s suggestion that the CBA does not provide “equivalent protection” to Wage 22 Order No. 16 is not well taken. Dkt. No. 12 at 3. Labor Code Section 226.7(c) requires an 23 employer to “pay the employee one additional hour of pay at the employee’s regular rate of 24 compensation.” See also Cal. Code Regs. tit. 8, § 11160(11)(D) (requiring “one (1) hour of pay at 25 the employee’s regular rate of compensation”). The CBA provision covering Magana requires an 26 employer to “pay the employee one (1) hour of pay at the employee’s applicable rate of 27 compensation.” Dkt. No. 10-2, Ex. A at 18-19. Neither of these provisions refers to “rate of pay,” ] difference between “regular” and “applicable” compensation that might permit an inference that 2 || the rate of compensation contemplated by the CBA is not equivalent to the rate provided for by 3 Section 226.7 and Wage Order No. 16. 4 In these circumstances, Wage Order No. 16 and Labor Code Section 226.7 do not apply to 5 || Magana. See Cal. Code Regs. tit. 8, § 11160(11)(E) (“This section shall not apply to any 6 || employee covered by a valid collective bargaining agreement if the collective bargaining 7 || agreement provides equivalent protection.”); Cal. Lab. Code § 226.7(e) (section “shall not apply to 8 an employee who is exempt from meal or rest or recovery period requirements pursuant to” an 9 || “order of the Industrial Welfare Commission”). 10 Consequently, Magana’s rest period claim exists solely as a result of the CBA and is 11 preempted by Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 185(a). See 12 Curtis v. Irwin Industries, Inc., 913 F.3d 1146, 1152-53 (9th Cir. 2019). Defendant Baja 13 Construction properly removed the case to this Court on that basis. See Garcia v. Serv. Emps. 14 || Jnt’l Union, 993 F.3d 757, 764 (9th Cir. 2021). The Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction 3 15 over the remaining state law claims that may not be preempted. 28 U.S.C. § 1367. a 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 || Dated: May 1, 2026 18 19 JAMES PONATO 20 United Wtates District Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28