Jimenez et al v. Menzies Aviation Inc et al
Filing
76
ORDER GRANTING 62 DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND 68 DENYING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT by Judge William H. Orrick. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/22/2016)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
JESSICA JIMENEZ, et al.,
Case No. 15-cv-02392-WHO
Plaintiffs,
8
v.
9
10
MENZIES AVIATION INC., et al.,
Defendants.
11
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S
MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY
JUDGMENT AND DENYING
PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR PARTIAL
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
United States District Court
Northern District of California
Dkt. Nos. 62, 68
12
13
Plaintiffs Jessica Jimenez and Orlando Mijos and defendant Menzies Aviation Inc. have
14
filed cross motions for partial summary judgment. Dkt. No. 62; Dkt. No. 68. I held a hearing on
15
the motions on December 14, 2016. Because the parties indicated at the hearing that a mediation
16
is scheduled for early January and that a ruling on their summary judgment motions would be
17
helpful prior to the mediation, I will now rule on the motions. An order explaining my reasoning
18
will be forthcoming.
19
After reviewing the parties’ memoranda, evidence, and argument, I conclude that plaintiffs
20
have failed to present any evidence of a disputed material fact to support their unpaid overtime
21
claims and have failed to present any evidence of actual injury on their wage statement claims.
22
Plaintiffs’ derivative claims are similarly unsupported by evidence. Menzies’ motion for partial
23
summary judgment is GRANTED and plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment is
24
DENIED.
25
The Second (unpaid overtime), Third (waiting time) and Sixth (UCL) Causes of Action are
26
adjudicated in favor of Menzies in full. The Fourth Cause of Action (wage statements), to the
27
extent it is based on plaintiffs’ inclusive dates and overtime theories, is adjudicated in favor of
28
Menzies. However, Menzies did not seek summary judgment on plaintiffs’ “Lead pay” theory, so
1
the Fourth Cause of Action survives to the extent it relies on the Lead pay theory. The Seventh
2
Cause of Action (PAGA), to the extent it is derivative of the Second, Third and Sixth Causes of
3
Action and the inclusive dates theory and overtime theory of Fourth Cause of Action, is
4
adjudicated in favor of Menzies. Menzies did not seek summary judgment on the non-class claims
5
– the First (unpaid minimum wage) and Fifth (reimbursement for tools and equipment) Causes of
6
Action – so those claims also remain at issue.
7
8
9
10
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 22, 2016
______________________________________
WILLIAM H. ORRICK
United States District Judge
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
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?