Giles

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 exempt employee” from January 2015 to May 2021 (see First Amended Class Action Compl. (hereinafter, “FCAC”) ¶ 4;3 see also Representative Action Compl. (hereinafter, “PAGA Complaint”) ¶ 7), alleges Canus “regularly failed” to pay him his “correct wages,” including “minimum and overtime wages,” failed to provide him with legally required “off- duty meal and rest breaks,” and failed to issue him “complete and accurate wage statements” (see FCAC ¶¶ 14, 20-23; see also PAGA Compl. ¶¶ 13-14, 17, 23, 25). Giles further alleges that, in or around April 2021, he complained to Canus about its employment practices, and that, as a result, Canus “retalia[ed]” against him by terminating his employment. (See FCAC ¶¶ 24-25.) Based on the above allegations, Giles, on February 23, 2022, filed a complaint in …