Haralson
Haralson v. United Airlines, Inc.
Opinion
Lead Opinion
Tigar, J.
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO DISMISS
Re: ECF No.
Before the Court is Defendant United’s Motion to Dismiss. ECF No. 20. Defendant U.S. Aviation joined in that Motion. See Haralson v. U.S. Aviation Services Corp., Case No. 16-cv-05226-JST (N.D. Cal.), ECF No. 18. 1 The Court will grant the motion in part and deny it in part.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff James Haralson brings several claims under California wage and hour *932 laws on behalf of himself and a putative class against Defendants United Airlines and U.S. Aviation Services. ECF No. 1-2 ¶ 1.
Haralson has worked as an aircraft cleaner for Defendants from June 2015 to the present. Id. ¶ 5. He alleges that during his employment he “was supervised and/or managed by United employees.” Id. ¶ 8.
The gravamen of Haralson’s complaint is that the Defendants had a policy or practice of requiring employees to be relieved—i.e., “released by a manager or supervisor”—before they could take meal or rest breaks. Id. ¶¶ 28, 31, 48, 49. As a result of this policy, Haralson alleges that employees had no control over their ability to take breaks or the timing of such breaks. Id. ¶¶ 29, 32, 49. Haralson further alleges…