Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Richard Ryan Oswald drove buses for MV Transportation, Inc. on Western Contra Costa Transit Authority routes from August 2023 to November 2024 under a CBA between MV and Teamsters Local 315 effective July 1, 2023. After filing a putative class wage-and-hour suit against MV in Contra Costa County Superior Court (later removed to the Northern District), Oswald filed a parallel Private Attorneys General Act representative action in the same court asserting essentially the same California Labor Code violations on a PAGA basis.
MV removed the PAGA action under federal-question jurisdiction, asserting that the Labor Management Relations Act § 301 completely preempts the underlying state-law claims because they require interpretation of the CBA. The court related-cased the matter to Judge Martínez-Olguín, who was already presiding over the original Oswald class action against MV. MV moved for judgment on the pleadings.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted MV’s motion in full, applying the same analysis it had used in the companion class action. The court took judicial notice of the CBA (publicly available, applied to Oswald, and submitted in connection with a Rule 12(c) motion based on LMRA preemption) and Oswald’s commercial driver’s license. It then applied the Ninth Circuit’s two-step Burnside/Curtis framework to each Labor Code claim.
For overtime, Labor Code § 514 supplied a CBA-based exemption: the MV/Teamsters CBA expressly provided wages, hours, working conditions, premium overtime rates, and a base wage well above 130% of the California minimum wage in 2023, 2024, and 2025. Under Curtis v. Irwin Industries, when § 514 is satisfied, the right to overtime exists solely under the CBA and is preempted under Section 301.
For meal periods, Labor Code §§ 512(e) and 226.7(e) supply parallel exemptions for commercial drivers covered by qualifying CBAs. Article 28 of the MV/Teamsters CBA expressly opts in. Independently, Oswald qualified as a “commercial driver” because he held a Class B commercial driver’s license and operated a passenger-transport vehicle, satisfying Labor Code § 512(g)(1) and Vehicle Code §§ 260, 15210.
For rest periods, Wage Order 9 § 12(C) carves out public transit bus drivers covered by qualifying CBAs. The MV/Teamsters CBA provides 10-minute rest periods, binding arbitration, premium overtime, and 130%-plus base wages, satisfying every element.
The remaining minimum-wage, wage-statement, deductions, timely-payment, payroll-records, waiting-time, and UCL allegations were derivative of the preempted overtime, meal, and rest period theories, and so were also preempted under Chavez v. Smurfit Kappa and similar authorities. Because all preempted claims existed only by virtue of the CBA, Oswald was required to exhaust the contractual grievance and arbitration procedure under Soremekun, Truex, and 14 Penn Plaza LLC v. Pyett. He did not allege any such exhaustion.
The court directed MV to submit a proposed judgment by January 9, 2026.
Key Takeaways
- Filing the same wage-and-hour theories as a PAGA representative action does not avoid LMRA preemption. The Section 301 analysis turns on whether the underlying right exists solely under or substantially depends on the CBA, regardless of how the procedural vehicle is labeled.
- For unionized California bus drivers, California Labor Code §§ 510–514, § 226.7, and Wage Order 9 supply matching CBA-based exemptions. A complying CBA effectively switches off statutory wage-and-hour rights.
- Plaintiffs cannot use the PAGA framework to bypass the CBA’s mandatory grievance and arbitration procedure when their claims are preempted under Section 301.
- Federal courts in the Ninth Circuit will routinely take judicial notice of the relevant CBA in Rule 12(c) motions premised on LMRA preemption — a defense fixture in unionized California wage-and-hour cases.
Why It Matters
Plaintiffs’ counsel in California wage-and-hour litigation often file a class action and a separate PAGA representative action in tandem, hoping that even if class certification falters, PAGA penalties will provide leverage. This decision shuts down both vehicles in one move when the underlying CBA triggers the statutory exemptions: just as Section 301 preempts the class action in the companion case, it also preempts the PAGA action.
The combined PAGA/class result against the same plaintiff at the same employer is the new normal for unionized California transit and trucking work. Companies with mature CBAs that meet the 130%-of-minimum-wage threshold, premium overtime, binding arbitration, and explicit § 512(e) opt-in language should expect the courts to enforce that bargain. Plaintiffs hoping to pursue PAGA penalties for unionized drivers will need to identify rights that fall outside the CBA framework — for example, claims that do not require CBA interpretation under Burnside’s second step.