Fite

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 GLENN FITE, et al., No. 2:21-CV-01633-DJC-AC

12 Plaintiffs, v. 13 ORDER SYSCO SACRAMENTO, INC., et al., 14 Defendants. 15

16

17 Plaintiffs bring this action against their former employer alleging Defendant’s

18 policies caused them to forgo legally mandated meal and rest breaks without

19 compensation. Plaintiffs allege various claims under the California Labor Code arising

20 from this unpaid off-the-clock work. Defendant now seeks judgment on the

21 pleadings, arguing Plaintiffs’ claims are preempted under section 301 of the Labor

22 Management Rela tions Act (“LMRA”) because they challenge, invoke, and require 23 interpretation of a Collective Bargaining Agreement (“CBA”) that governed the terms 24 of Plaintiffs’ employment. Defendant argues Plaintiffs’ claims must be dismissed as 25 they have not yet exhausted the grievance procedures for these claims in the CBA. 26 As discussed further below, the Court finds that Plaintiffs’ claims do not…