Bryan et al v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc. et al
Filing
313
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO STAY 290 . (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 6/24/2016)
1
2
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
5
6
CHARLES RIDGWAY, et al.,
CASE NO. 3:08-cv-05221-SI
Plaintiffs,
7
v.
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S
MOTION TO STAY
8
9
10
WAL-MART STORES, INC.,
Defendant.
Re: Dkt. No. 290
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
Currently before the Court is defendant Wal-Mart's motion to stay this case until the Ninth
13
Circuit resolves the pending appeal of Ortega v. J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc., No. 14-56034 (9th
14
Cir.). Dkt. No. 290 (“Motion”). Plaintiffs have filed an opposition. Dkt. No. 305. Wal-Mart has
15
replied. Dkt. No. 308. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court finds this matter suitable for
16
resolution without oral argument and VACATES the hearing currently scheduled for July 1, 2016.
17
Wal-Mart argues that the Ortega appeal will “bear directly on summary judgment and trial
18
proceedings before this Court” and that staying the case is the most efficient way to proceed.
19
Motion at 1-2. In Ortega, truck driver plaintiffs alleged that J.B. Hunt violated California's
20
minimum wage laws by failing to directly compensate its drivers for certain activities. Ortega,
21
No. 07-cv-8336-BRO, 2014 WL 2884560, at *1 (C.D. Cal. June 4, 2014). In granting summary
22
judgment for the defendant, the district court held that the Federal Aviation Administration
23
Authorization Act ("FAAAA") preempted such claims. Id. at *6. Wal-Mart intends to file its own
24
motion for summary judgment of plaintiffs’ minimum wage claims based on FAAAA preemption
25
shortly, but argues that a stay would be the better course at this time. Mem. P. & A. at 1.
26
The Court disagrees. Ortega concerned a separate matter raised by different parties in
27
another court. Moreover, the Central District of California decided Ortega before it had the
28
benefit of the Ninth Circuit’s guidance in Dilts v. Penske Logistics, LLC, 769 F.3d 637, 650
1
(2014), in which the appeals court found that the FAAAA does not preempt California meal and
2
rest break laws as applied to defendant motor carriers. This case against Wal-Mart commenced
3
nearly eight years ago and was already stayed for three years. Dkt. Nos. 1, 32, 37. The Court is
4
reluctant to issue another stay at this time, particularly given that the Ortega appeal has been
5
pending for several years and the opening brief in the Ninth Circuit is not due for two more
6
months. See Mem. P. & A. at 1. The question of FAAAA preemption of California minimum
7
wage law appears to be a new issue in this case,1 and the Court will consider that question when
8
Wal-Mart files its motion for summary judgment on July 8, 2016.
9
For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby DENIES Wal-Mart's motion to stay.
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 24, 2016
______________________________________
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
In February 2013, Wal-Mart moved to dismiss plaintiffs’ fourth amended complaint
based in part on arguments that the FAAAA preempted plaintiffs’ meal and rest break claims.
Dkt. No. 65. The motion did not argue for preemption of the minimum wage claims.
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?