Ramirez

I. BACKGROUND

22 As alleged in the Third Amended Complaint, Defendants employed Ramirez as a non- 23 exempt employee from September 2010 to September 2019 and during that time failed to 24 compensate him for hours he worked and missed meal periods and rest breaks. ECF No. 64 25 (“TAC”) ¶¶ 17, 19. Ramirez alleges that he was paid $10.00 per hour as a server. Id. ¶ 18. 26 Ramirez seeks to represent a class of all current and former hourly-paid and non-exempt 27 employees who worked for Defendant in California since November 3, 2017. Id. ¶ 11. Ramirez brings six claims under the California Labor Code and one claim under California’s Unfair Competition Law. See id. ¶¶ 52-134. II. LEGAL STANDARD A. Motion to Dismiss “A motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted ‘tests the legal sufficiency of a claim.’” Conservation Force v. Salazar, 646 F.3d 1240, 1241-42 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Navarro v. Block, 250 F.3d 729, 732 (9th Cir. 2001)). When determining whether a claim has been stated, the Court accepts as true all well-pled factual allegations and…