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