Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-02854/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-02854-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
E-3 Systems
Defendant
Jose Franco
Plaintiff

Document Text:

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSE FRANCO,

Plaintiff,

v.

E-3 SYSTEMS,

Defendant.

Case No. 19-cv-01453-HSG 

ORDER

JOSE FRANCO,

Plaintiff,

v.

E-3 SYSTEMS,

Defendant.

Case No. 19-cv-02854-HSG 

In Defendant’s opposition to Plaintiff’s motion to remand, defense counsel cites generally 

to the 2005 and 2018 CBAs and asserts, in conclusory fashion, that the CBAs meet the 

requirements of Cal. Lab. Code § 514 because they “expressly provide for the wages, hours of 

work, and working conditions of the employees, and provide premium wage rates for all overtime 

hours worked and a regular hourly rate of pay for those employees of not less than 30 percent 

more than the state minimum wage.” Case No. 19-cv-01453-HSG, Dkt. No. 9 at 5; Case No. 19-

cv-02854-HSG, Dkt. No. 12 at 5–6. But Defendant fails to explain, with specific reference to 

relevant provisions, exactly how the CBAs satisfy the § 514 requirements.

Defense counsel should be prepared at the October 24, 2019 hearing to describe in detail 

why the CBAs satisfy the § 514 requirements, and to identify the specific provisions in the CBAs 

that they believe meet each requirement of § 514. For example, counsel needs to identify the 

Case 4:19-cv-02854-HSG Document 21 Filed 10/22/19 Page 1 of 2
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

provisions of the CBAs that establish that all covered employees were paid “a regular hourly rate 

of pay . . . of not less than 30 percent more than the state minimum wage” at all relevant times. To 

the extent Plaintiff’s counsel disagree that the CBAs meet the requirements of § 514, counsel

should be prepared to engage in the same type of detailed discussion. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 10/22/2019

______________________________________

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 4:19-cv-02854-HSG Document 21 Filed 10/22/19 Page 2 of 2