Opinion
2:22-cv-01838-LK
05-01-2023
ERIC HORTON, individually and on behalf of all others simiarily situated, Plaintiff, v. AMERICOOL HEATING & A/C, L.L.C. d/b/a AMERICOOL HEATING & AIR CONDITIONING, a Washington Limited Liability Company; LINCOLN ANDERSON, individually and on behalf of the marital community comprised of LINCOLN ANDERSON and TAMARA ANDERSON; NORMAN UPSON, individually and on behalf of the marital community comprised of NORMAN UPSON and MELISSA UPSON, Defendants.
TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC Toby J. Marshall, WSBA #32726 Eric R. Nusser, WSBA #51513 Jasmin Rezaie-Tirabadi, WSBA #60285 MENDEZ LAW GROUP, PLLC Damian S. Mendez, WSBA #36157 Attorneys for Plaintiff DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP Devin Smith, WSBA #42219 Madhura Panjini, WSBA #54370 Attorneys for Defendants
NOTED FOR CONSIDERATION: February 17, 2023
TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC
Toby J. Marshall, WSBA #32726
Eric R. Nusser, WSBA #51513
Jasmin Rezaie-Tirabadi, WSBA #60285
MENDEZ LAW GROUP, PLLC
Damian S. Mendez, WSBA #36157
Attorneys for Plaintiff
DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
Devin Smith, WSBA #42219
Madhura Panjini, WSBA #54370
Attorneys for Defendants
HONORABLE LAUREN KING JUDGE
STIPULATION AND ORDER TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
BARBARA JACOBS ROTHSTEIN, U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
I. STIPULATION
In the second claim for relief set forth in his complaint, Dkt. 1-1, Plaintiff Eric Horton alleges Defendants violated the provisions of RCW 49.12.020 and WAC 296-126-092(1) & (2), which require employers to provide meal breaks to employees.
In their answer to Plaintiff's complaint, Defendants have asserted an affirmative defense based on RCW 49.12.187, which provides in relevant part that “rules adopted under this chapter regarding appropriate . . . meal periods as applied to employees in the construction trades may be superseded by a collective bargaining agreement negotiated under the national labor relations act, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 151 et seq., if the terms of the collective bargaining agreement covering such employees specifically require . . . meal periods and prescribe requirements concerning those . . . meal periods.” Dkt. 12 at 29. Defendants maintain that given RCW 49.12.187 and the application to Plaintiff of a collective bargaining agreement between the Inland Northwest Sheet Metal Contractors Association and the Northwest Regional Council of SMART Local Union 55, Plaintiff's second claim for relief is preempted by Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 141 et seq. (“LMRA”). Dkt. 1 at 5-7.
Plaintiff concedes that his second claim for relief is preempted under Section 301 of the LMRA. Plaintiff also concedes that as a result of this, he cannot pursue damages under his fourth and sixth claims for relief that are based on the second claim for relief.
Plaintiff also asserts claims for off-the-clock work, including off-the-clock work performed as a result of being clocked out for a meal break not taken. Defendants maintain that these claims are also preempted under Section 301 of the LMRA, but Plaintiff disagrees. Defendants intend to file a motion on the issue.
In light of the foregoing, the parties agree that good cause exists to dismiss Plaintiff's second claim for relief as preempted under Section 301 of the LMRA and to prohibit Plaintiff from pursuing damages under the fourth and sixth claims for relief that are based on the second claim for relief. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(a)(1)(ii) (providing for stipulation by dismissal signed by all parties).
II. ORDER
Plaintiff's second claim for relief, which alleges a violation of Washington's meal break laws, is DISMISSED as preempted under Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, and Plaintiff is PROHIBITED from pursuing damages under the fourth and sixth claims for relief that are based on the second claim for relief. The Court RESERVES RULING on the parties' dispute over whether Plaintiff may pursue unpaid wage claims for off-the-clock performed as a result of being clocked out for a meal break not taken.
IT IS SO ORDERED.