UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRADLEY J. HASTY, Case No. 25-cv-04516-RFL

Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO v. REMAND

HYATT CORPORATION, Re: Dkt. No. 21 Defendant.

Plaintiff Bradley Hasty brought this action against Defendant Hyatt Corporation in state court seeking civil penalties under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”). Hasty also brought a putative class action against Hyatt, captioned Hasty v. Hyatt Corp., No. 25- cv-02662-RFL (“the Hasty Class Action”), which has been removed to federal court. Hyatt removed this case to federal court on the sole basis that Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act (“LMRA”) preempted Hasty’s claims. (Dkt. No. 1 at 4, ¶ 11.)1 In the Hasty Class Action, Hyatt seeks to have the instant case consolidated. In this case, Hasty now moves to have his case remanded to state court. (Dkt. No. 21.) Because the Court has subject matter jurisdiction under Section 301 and

, Hasty’s motion to remand is DENIED. This case shall be consolidated with Hasty v. Hyatt Corp., No. 25-cv-02662-RFL. This order assumes the reader is familiar with the facts of the case, the applicable legal standards, and the arguments made by the parties. Section 301 preempts Hasty’s PAGA claim arising from Hyatt’s alleged violation of Labor Code Section 204. Hasty’s complaint alleges that Hyatt (a) “maintained a consistently

1 All references to page numbers refer to ECF pagination. applied policy and practice of not paying all wages earned between the 1‘ and 15" days of a month between the 16" and 26" day and failed to pay all wages earned between the 16" and the last day of the month between of the 1“ and 10" day of the following month” and (b) “failed to pay all wages earned by not more than seven calendar days following the close of the payroll period” (Dkt. No. 1 at 47, 4 115), both in violation of Section 204(a). However, Section 204(c) of the Labor Code provides that “when employees are covered by a collective bargaining agreement that provides different pay arrangements, those arrangements shall apply to the covered employees,” not Section 204(a). Hasty does not dispute that the CBA governing his employment provides different pay arrangements from Section 204(a), paying some employees semi-monthly and others weekly or daily. (Dkt. No. 4 at 89.) Hasty instead states that he agrees to dismiss the Section 204 claim. (Dkt. No. 21 at 14.) Hasty has yet to dismiss his Section 204 claim, therefore, the claim persists and is preempted by Section 301 of the LMRA. Johnson vy. S.F. Health Care & Rehab Inc., No. 22-cv-01982-JSC,

, at *9 (N.D. Cal. July 15, 2022) (“[T]he statutory exemption in § 204(c) applies. Because the exemption applies, . . . LMRA § 301 preempts Plaintiff’s § 204(a) claim.”). Accordingly, the Court also has supplemental jurisdiction over Hasty’s remaining claims, which “arise from the same working conditions and relationship with [Hyatt] during the same period” as his Section 204 claim. Jimenez v. Young’s Mkt. Co., LLC, No. 21-cv-02410-EMC,

, at *13 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 20, 2021) (quoting Gay v. Pac. Steel Grp., No. 20-cv-08442-HSG,

, at *3 (N.D. Cal. June 15, 2021)). For the foregoing reasons, Hasty’s motion to remand is denied. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: December 8, 2025

RITA F. LIN United States District Judge