1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 San Francisco Division 11 CHEVEYO AMADOR, Case No. 23-cv-02117-LB

12 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING CLAIMS AGAINST JAMIE WESSELS 13 v. Re: ECF No. 39 14 HOLLAND RESIDENTIAL, LLC, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff Cheveyo Amador sued his former employer Holland Residential for wrongful 18 termination (in retaliation for his complaints about unsafe working conditions) and missed rest 19 breaks, in violation of state law. After the defendant removed the case to federal court, he sought 20 leave to amend his complaint to add his supervisor Jamie Wessels as a defendant. Holland 21 contends that she is not liable for the wrongful-termination claims because she is not an employer, 22 and she is not liable for missed rest breaks because she is not a managing agent. The court grants 23 Holland’s motion on these grounds. 24 The court’s earlier order describes the plaintiff’s work history with Holland, including his job as 25 a maintenance employee, his responsibilities, his ability to store things at work, his workday, the 26 stressful context that attended homeless persons congregating at his work place, his complaints to 27 ] his managers, his on-the-job injuries, and his reporting them to his employer.! These allegations ar: 2 || unchanged in the amended complaint. The earlier order also identified allegations in the proposed 3 amended complaint about Ms. Wessels.” In the amended complaint, the plaintiff reiterates the facts 4 ||} summarized in the earlier order: he received good performance evaluations, he used the storage 5 || room on the property, and Ms. Wessels fired him (despite three years that he was allowed to use it) 6 || at atime period that followed his complaints about the homelessness issues that attended his job.? 7 || The court had a hearing on March 28, 2024. The parties consented to magistrate-judge jurisdiction. 8 Ms. Wessels is not a proper defendant. First, the plaintiff does not dispute that she is diverse 9 || (even though he tried to add her as a defendant because he thought she was a California citizen wh« 10 || would defeat diversity jurisdiction). Second, the court follows as persuasive the authority that a 11 supervisor has no individual liability for the wrongful-termination claims under Labor Code §§ 631 a 12 and 6311.° See Hart v. Tuolumne Fire Dist., No. CV F 11-1272 LJO DLB,

, at *

g 13 10 (E.D. Cal. 2011); cf Thompson v. Genon Energy Servs., LLC, No. C13-0187 TEH, 2013 WL

Y 14 || 968224, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 12, 2013) (remand with non-diverse defendant because law is

15 || unsettled). Third, Ms. Wessels is not a managing agent and thus is not liable under Cal. Lab. Code Q 16 || 558.1 for missed rest breaks. White v. Ultramar, Inc.,

(1999).

17 In sum, the court grants Holland’s motion on the ground that the plaintiff cannot state claims Z 18 against Ms. Wessels. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. LAE 20 Dated: April 4, 2024 LAUREL BEELER 21 United States Magistrate Judge 22 || 20MIN ' Order — ECF No. 20 at 2-4. Citations refer to the Electronic Case File (ECF); pinpoint citations are to 24 || the ECF-generated page numbers at the top of documents. The court incorporates its earlier order by th: reference, including its fact summary, the legal standards, and legal analysis. Because of that 25 incorporation, this order does not reiterate the standards of review and instead relies on the earlier □□□□□ > First Am. Compl. — ECF No. 38 at 4 (4 7), 5—6 (4 10), 12-13 (4 21). 27 4 Consents — ECF Nos. 7, 8-3, 44. 28 || ° See Mot. — ECF No. 39 at 10-11 (collecting and analyzing cases).