Horowitz v. Skywest Airlines, Inc.

Filing 65

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION. To the extent SkyWest seeks judgment in its favor on the Third, Fourth, Fifth, Tenth, Eleventh, and Twelfth Causes of Action, the motion is granted. T o the extent SkyWest seeks judgment in its favor on the Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Causes of Action, except insofar as said claims are based on the First Cause of Action, the motion is granted. In all other respects, the motion is denied. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on May 22, 2023. (mmclc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/22/2023)

1
2
3
4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

GREGORY HOROWITZ,
Plaintiff,

8
v.

9
10

SKYWEST AIRLINES, INC.,
Defendant.

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 21-cv-04674-MMC
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY
ADJUDICATION
Re: Dkt. No. 52

12
13

Before the Court is defendant SkyWest Airlines, Inc.’s (“SkyWest”) Motion for

14

Summary Adjudication, filed December 2, 2022, as amended December 5, 2022, in

15

which intervenor SkyWest Airlines Pilot Association (“SAPA”) has filed a joinder. Plaintiff

16

Gregory Horowitz (“Horowitz”) has filed opposition, to which SkyWest has replied. The

17

Court, having read and considered the papers filed in support of and in opposition to the

18

motion, rules as follows.1
BACKGROUND

19
20

In the operative complaint, the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), Horowitz alleges

21

he “worked as a Pilot for [SkyWest]” (see FAC ¶ 5) and seeks to proceed on behalf of a

22

class defined as “all [SkyWest’s] California-based Pilots, at any time during the four years

23

before the filing of this [FAC] through the date of trial” (see FAC ¶ 13).

24

According to Horowitz, SkyWest “fail[ed] to . . . pay minimum and overtime wages;

25

provide meal periods; authorize and permit paid rest periods; reimburse business-related

26

expenses; provide accurate itemized wage statements; and timely pay wages due upon

27
28

1

By order filed January 3, 2023, the Court took the matter under submission.

1

separation of employment.” (See FAC ¶ 2.)
Based on the above allegations, Horowitz brings the following fourteen Causes of

United States District Court
Northern District of California

2
3

Action: (1) “Failure to Pay Minimum Wages,” (2) “Failure to Pay Overtime Wages,” (3)

4

“Failure to Provide Required Meal Periods,” (4) “Failure to Provide Required Rest

5

Periods,” (5) “Failure to Reimburse Expenses,” (6) “Failure to Provide Accurate Wage

6

Statements,” (7) “Failure to Timely Pay Wages Due at Separation,” (8) “Violation of the

7

Unfair Competition Law,” (9) “PAGA Civil Penalties for Failure to Pay Minimum and

8

Overtime Wages,” (10) “PAGA Civil Penalties for Failure to Provide Meal Periods,” (11)

9

“PAGA Civil Penalties for Failure to Authorize and Permit Paid Rest Periods,” (12) “PAGA

10

Civil Penalties for Failure to Reimburse Business-Related Expenses,” (13) “PAGA Civil

11

Penalties for Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized Wage Statements,” (14) “PAGA Civil

12

Penalties for Failure to Timely Pay Wages Due Upon Separation of Employment.”
By the instant motion, SkyWest argues it is entitled to summary judgment on the

13
14

Third through Fourteenth Causes of Action.2
LEGAL STANDARD

15

Pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a “court shall grant

16
17

summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine issue as to any material

18

fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” See Fed. R. Civ. P.

19

56(a).

20

The Supreme Court’s 1986 “trilogy” of Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317

21

(1986), Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986), and Matsushita Elec.

22

Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (1986), requires that a party seeking

23

summary judgment show the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. The moving

24

party need not “produce evidence showing the absence of a genuine issue of material

25
26
27
28

2

SkyWest is not seeking summary judgment on the First Cause of Action, and the
Court dismissed the Second Cause of Action without leave to amend. (See Order
Granting Def.’s Mot. to Dismiss Claim for Unpaid Overtime, filed Sept. 8, 2021, Dkt. No.
29.)
2

United States District Court
Northern District of California

1

fact,” but may discharge its burden simply by pointing out “that there is an absence of

2

evidence to support the nonmoving party's case.” See Celotex, 477 U.S. at 325. Once

3

the moving party has done so, the nonmoving party must “go beyond the pleadings and

4

by [its] own affidavits, or by the depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions

5

on file, designate specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” See id. at

6

324 (internal quotation and citation omitted). “When the moving party has carried its

7

burden under Rule 56[ ], its opponent must do more than simply show that there is some

8

metaphysical doubt as to the material facts.” Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 586. “If the

9

[opposing party's] evidence is merely colorable, or is not significantly probative, summary

10

judgment may be granted.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249-50 (citations omitted).

11

“[I]nferences to be drawn from the underlying facts,” however, “must be viewed in the

12

light most favorable to the party opposing the motion.” See Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 587

13

(internal quotation and citation omitted).

14

DISCUSSION

15

A. Third and Fourth Causes of Action – Meal and Rest Break (“MRB”) Claims

16

The Third Cause of Action is brought pursuant to § 512 of the California Labor

17

Code and § 11 of the Industrial Welfare Commission (“IWC”) Wage Order No. 9-2001

18

§ 11, both of which require employers to provide employees with “a meal period of not

19

less than 30 minutes” for “a work period of more than five hours” as well as a “second

20

meal period of not less than 30 minutes” for a “work period of more than 10 hours per

21

day.” See Cal. Lab. Code § 512(a); Cal. Code Regs. tit. 8, § 11090(11)(A)-(B). The

22

Fourth Cause of Action is brought pursuant to IWC Wage Order No. 9-2001 § 12, which

23

requires employers to “authorize and permit all employees to take rest periods . . . based

24

on the total hours worked daily at the rate of ten (10) minutes net rest time per four (4)

25

hours or major fraction thereof.” See Cal. Code Regs. tit. 8, § 11090(12)(A). Both the

26

Third and Fourth Causes of Action are also brought pursuant to § 226.7 of the California

27

Labor Code, which prohibits an employer from “requir[ing] an employee to work during a

28

meal or rest . . . period,” and requires the employer to “pay the employee one additional
3

1

hour of pay at the employee's regular rate of compensation for each workday that the

2

meal or rest . . . period is not provided.” See Cal. Lab. Code § 226.7(b)-(c).

3

Horowitz bases the Third and Fourth Causes of Action on allegations that

4

SkyWest failed to comply with the above-cited MRB requirements under California law.

5

SkyWest argues the Third and Fourth Causes of Action are preempted by the Federal

6

Aviation Act (“FAA”).

United States District Court
Northern District of California

7

“Under the field preemption doctrine, ‘[s]tates are precluded from regulating

8

conduct in a field that Congress, acting within its proper authority, has determined must

9

be regulated by its exclusive governance.’” See Bernstein v. Virgin Am., Inc., 3 F.4th

10

1127, 1138 (9th Cir. 2021) (citing Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387, 399 (2012)),

11

cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 2903 (2022). The Ninth Circuit has “held that the FAA, together

12

with the federal aviation regulations (‘FARs’) promulgated by the Federal Aviation

13

Administration . . . , ‘occupies the entire field of aviation safety’ and that Congress ‘clearly

14

indicated its intent to be the sole regulator’ of this field.” See Ventress v. Japan Airlines,

15

747 F.3d 716, 721 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting Montalvo v. Spirit Airlines, 508 F.3d 464, 473-

16

76 (9th Cir. 2007)). Consistent therewith, “federal law preempts state law claims that

17

encroach upon, supplement, or alter the federally occupied field of aviation safety.” See

18

Bernstein, 3 F.4th at 1139 (internal quotation, citation, alteration, and emphasis omitted).

19

Here, SkyWest argues that under the FAA, “[e]ach pilot in command of an aircraft

20

is, during flight time, in command of the aircraft and crew and is responsible for the safety

21

of the passengers, crewmembers, cargo, and airplane” (see SkyWest’s Mot. for Summ.

22

Adjudication (“Def.’s Mot.”) at 11:12-14, Dkt. No. 52 (quoting 14 C.F.R. § 121.533)), and

23

must “[b]e at the crewmember station”3 during “takeoff and landing, and while en route,

24

. . . unless . . . absence is necessary to perform duties in connection with the operation of

25

the aircraft or in connection with physiological needs” (see Def.’s Mot. at 11:15-17

26
27
28

As SkyWest explains, “each pilot must be at his/her station in the cockpit.” (See
Def.’s Mot. at 13:12-13 (citing 14 C.F.R. § 91.105).)
3

4

1

(quoting 14 C.F.R. § 91.105)). Consequently, SkyWest contends, “[t]hese regulations

2

leave no room to allow a pilot to [take a break] for 10 or 30 minutes,” during which time

3

the pilot may not be required to work. (See Def.’s Mot. at 11:17); see also Cal. Lab.

4

Code § 226.7(b) (providing “[a]n employer shall not require an employee to work during a

5

meal or rest . . . period”).
In response, Horowitz argues “California’s meal and rest requirements have been

United States District Court
Northern District of California

6
7

found to apply to the airline industry” (see Pl.’s Opp’n to SkyWest’s Mot. for Summ.

8

Adjudication (“Pl.’s Opp’n”) at 5:17-18, Dkt. No. 54), and, in support thereof, cites two

9

cases, see Bernstein, 3 F.4th at 1138-39; Wilson v. SkyWest Airlines, Inc., 2021 WL

10

2913656, at *1 (N.D. Cal. July 12, 2021), holding, as to flight attendants, California’s MRB

11

requirements are not preempted by the FAA. As to pilots, however, as SkyWest points

12

out, the FAA has been found to preempt state MRB requirements.
In particular, in Joseph v. Berkeley Grp., LLC, 823 F. App'x 472 (9th Cir. 2020), the

13
14

Ninth Circuit held a Nevada statute setting forth MRB requirements similar to those at

15

issue here, see Nev. Rev. Stat. § 608.019(1)-(2),4 is preempted by the FAA, noting

16

“[f]ederal regulations applicable to [an airline’s] operations provide detailed standards

17

governing the duration of pilots’ rest breaks between duty periods,” and thus “preempt the

18

pilots’ claims that they were entitled under state law to breaks of different frequency and

19

duration,” see Joseph, 823 F. App’x at 473.
Accordingly, the Court finds the Third and Fourth Causes of Action are preempted

20
21

by the FAA and, consequently, SkyWest is entitled to summary judgment thereon.5

22

//

23
24
25
26
27
28

The Court hereby GRANTS SkyWest’s unopposed request for judicial notice of
the Nevada district court filing identifying the Nevada statute at issue in Joseph. (See
Def.’s Req. for Jud. Notice in Supp. of its Mot. for Summ. Adjudication, Ex. A, Dkt. No.
48-5); see also In re Icenhower, 755 F.3d 1130, 1142 (9th Cir. 2014) (noting courts may
properly take judicial notice of “court filings and other matters of public record”).
4

In light of this finding, the Court does not address herein defendants’ additional
arguments in support of dismissal of the Third and Fourth Causes of Action. (See Def.’s
Mot. at 5; see also SAPA’s Joinder in Def.’s Mot. (“SAPA’s Joinder”) at 2, Dkt. No. 53.)
5

5

1
2

The Fifth Cause of Action is brought pursuant to § 2802 of the California Labor

3

Code, which requires “[a]n employer [to] indemnify his or her employee for all necessary

4

expenditures or losses incurred by the employee in direct consequence of the discharge

5

of his or her duties.” See Cal. Lab. Code § 2802(a).

6

United States District Court
Northern District of California

B. Fifth Cause of Action – Expenditure Reimbursement Claim

Horowitz bases the Fifth Cause of Action on allegations that he was “required by

7

[SkyWest] to use [his] personal cell phone[] regularly to clock in when arriving at the

8

airport; clock out when leaving the airport; and make calls to, and receive calls from,

9

traffic controllers, maintenance crews, and dispatch,” and that SkyWest “did not provide

10

[Horowitz] with any reimbursement for this . . . use of [his] personal cell phone[].” (See

11

FAC ¶ 37.)

12

The evidence is undisputed, however, that any such use of a personal cell phone

13

was not required. (See Decl. of Steven Spagnolo, Manager of Crew Support Resources

14

(“Spagnolo Decl.”) ¶ 34, Dkt. No. 47-1 (averring SkyWest pilots “are each provided with a

15

SkyWest-issued tablet[,] and have access to SkyWest computers in every airport crew

16

lounge (and sometimes in other areas of the airport) for any work-related tasks, such as

17

checking in before a flight,” as well as “communicat[ing] with maintenance, dispatch, crew

18

scheduling and air traffic control,” for which communications they also have the option of

19

“using the phones available at the gate”); see also Decl. of Amanda C. Sommerfeld in

20

Supp. of Def.’s Mot., Ex. A (“Horowitz Dep.”) at 60:24-61:4, Dkt. No. 48-1 (Horowitz’s

21

acknowledgment, when asked whether he “could . . . have used [his] SkyWest device,”

22

that he “could have pulled it out and – and used it. . . .”).)

23
24
25
26
27
28

Under such circumstances, Horowitz has failed to show his use of a personal cell
phone was a “necessary expenditure[].” See Cal. Lab. Code § 2802(a).
Accordingly, the Court finds SkyWest is entitled to summary judgment on the Fifth
Cause of Action.
C. Sixth Cause of Action – Wage Statement Claim
The Sixth Cause of Action is brought pursuant to § 226 of the California Labor
6

1

Code, which requires “[a]n employer [to] furnish to his or her employee . . . an accurate

2

itemized statement in writing showing,” inter alia, “total hours worked by the employee,”

3

see Cal. Lab. Code § 226(a)(2), as well as “the name and address of the legal entity that

4

is the employer,” see § 226(a)(8), and provides statutory damages for “[a]n employee

5

suffering injury as a result of a knowing and intentional failure by an employer to comply,”

6

see § 226(e)(1).

United States District Court
Northern District of California

7

Horowitz bases the Sixth Cause of Action on allegations that SkyWest’s wage

8

statements failed to include the “total number of hours worked and the name of the legal

9

entity that is the employer,” and that the wage statements were inaccurate “[b]ecause

10

[SkyWest] failed to compensate [him] for all hours worked and for any noncompliant meal

11

or rest periods.” (See FAC ¶ 60.)6

12

“[A] claim for damages under Section 226(e) requires a showing of three elements:

13

(1) a violation of Section 226(a); (2) that is knowing and intentional; and (3) a resulting

14

injury.” Willner v. Manpower Inc., 35 F. Supp. 3d 1116, 1128 (N.D. Cal. 2014) (internal

15

quotation and citation omitted). The Court next addresses whether Horowitz has made

16

the requisite showing.
1. § 226(a)(2) – Failure to Include Total Hours Worked

17
18

To the extent the Sixth Cause of Action is based on a failure to include the total

19

hours worked, Horowitz, in support thereof, has submitted evidence showing wage

20

statements he was issued by SkyWest did not include all of the hours he worked. (See

21

Notice of Lodgment of Exhibits in Supp. of Pl.’s Opp’n, Ex. 3, Dkt. No. 54-3 (seven wage

22

statements showing total credit hours but not total hours worked); see also id., Ex. 2

23
24
25
26
27
28

Horowitz, in his opposition, asserts an additional failure, namely, that “SkyWest’s
wage statements did not contain . . . ‘all applicable hourly rates in effect during the pay
period and the corresponding number of hours worked at each hourly rate,’” as required
by § 226(a)(9), a claim, as SkyWest points out, not alleged in the FAC. (See Pl.’s Opp’n
at 7:2-4.) The Court has not considered herein claims raised for the first time at summary
judgment. See Pickern v. Pier 1 Imports (U.S.), Inc., 457 F.3d 963, 968-69 (9th Cir.
2006) (affirming summary judgment in favor of defendant where “the complaint gave
[defendants] no notice of the specific factual allegations” raised in plaintiff’s opposition to
defendant’s motion for summary judgment).
6

7

1

(“Spagnolo Dep.”) at 107:18-20 (testifying “hours” listed on Horowitz’s wage statements

2

are “credit hours”).)7

3
4

wage statements a pilot’s total hours worked, specifically, by listing total “duty hours,”

5

which “represent the outer limit of time ‘worked’ by pilots” and “include some periods of

6

time during which pilots are not actually performing work-related tasks.” (See Spagnolo

7

Decl. ¶ 20); see also Cal. Code Regs. tit. 8, § 11090 (defining “[h]ours worked” as “the

8

time during which an employee is subject to the control of an employer, and includes all

9

the time the employee is suffered or permitted to work, whether or not required to do so”).

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

SkyWest concedes that it was not until February 2022 that it began to include in

Nevertheless, SkyWest argues, Horowitz’s “claim must fail because any violation

11

[of § 226] was not ‘knowing and intentional.’” (See Def.’s Mot. at 7:12-13.) The “majority”

12

of courts to have addressed the question have held “an employer's good faith belief that it

13

is not violating the California Labor Code precludes a finding of a knowing and intentional

14

violation,” see Arroyo v. Int'l Paper Co., 611 F. Supp. 3d 824, 840 (N.D. Cal. 2020),8 and,

15

as the Ninth Circuit has explained, “the operative question” for a good faith defense is

16

whether, “based on the state of the law” at the time the wage statements were issued, the

17

defendant “presented an objectively reasonable defense that is not marred by bad-faith

18

conduct,” see Hill v. Walmart Inc., 32 F. 4th 811, 817 (9th Cir. 2022).

19

Here, SkyWest, in support of its good faith belief, relies on the dormant Commerce

20

Clause, and, in particular, argues that during the period of Horowitz’s employment,

21

namely, “July 21, 2016 until August 2020” (see Spagnolo Decl. ¶ 31), it “believed that the

22
7

23

The number of hours attributed to a credit hour varies depending on the type of
work performed. (See Spagnolo Decl. ¶¶ 24-28.)

24

Under the minority view, any “wage statement not [the] result of clerical error or
inadvertent mistake” is deemed “knowing and intentional.” See Arroyo, 611 F. Supp. 3d
at 840-41. The Court finds persuasive the reasoning set forth in decisions applying the
majority view. See id. at 841 (noting “failing to consider the employer's good faith belief
would read out of § 226(e) the mental state implicated by the phrase ‘knowing and
intentional’”) (emphasis omitted); see also Magadia v. Wal-Mart Assocs., Inc., 384 F.
Supp. 3d 1058, 1082 (N.D. Cal. 2019), rev'd in part, vacated in part, on other grounds,
999 F.3d 668 (9th Cir. 2021) (collecting cases).

25
26
27
28

8

8

1

[dormant Commerce Clause] preclude[d] application of California’s wage-statement rules

2

to pilots” (see Def.’s Mot. at 8:27-28).

United States District Court
Northern District of California

3

“A critical requirement for proving a violation of the dormant Commerce Clause is

4

that there must be a substantial burden on interstate commerce.” See Bernstein, 3 F.4th

5

at 1135 (emphasis omitted). Here, SkyWest cites to two cases, one federal and one

6

state, holding, respectively, application of California wage laws to airline employees

7

would violate the dormant Commerce Clause. See Ward v. United Airlines, Inc., 2016

8

WL 3906077, at *3, *5 (N.D. Cal. July 19, 2016) (holding, as to pilots who “reside in

9

California,” application of § 226 “would unduly burden interstate commerce”); see also

10

Fitz-Gerald v. SkyWest, Inc., 155 Cal. App. 4th 411, 414, 422 (2007) (holding, as to “flight

11

attendants (FAs) working for SkyWest in California,” application of IWC Wage Order No.

12

9-2001 “would substantially burden interstate commerce”).

13

In response, Horowitz, citing Bernstein v. Virgin Am., Inc., 2018 WL 3349135 (N.D.

14

Cal. July 9, 2018), aff'd in part, rev'd in part and remanded, 3 F.4th 1127 (9th Cir. 2021)

15

and Ward v. United Airlines, Inc., 9 Cal. 5th 732 (2020), contends SkyWest is not entitled

16

to a good faith defense “after July 2018, and certainly not after June 30, 2020.” (See Pl.’s

17

Opp’n at 8:18-19.)

18

In that regard, Horowitz first points out that the district court in Bernstein granted

19

summary judgment to flight attendants who were issued wage statements that, according

20

to Horowitz, were “similar” to those issued to SkyWest’s pilots. (See Pl.’s Opp’n at 8:6-

21

7.)9 As SkyWest points out, however, the district court’s decision was appealed to the

22

Ninth Circuit, and although the Ninth Circuit affirmed, it did not issue its opinion until

23

February 23, 2021, see Bernstein, 3 F.4th 1127, a decision that, in turn, was appealed to

24

the Supreme Court, which denied certiorari on June 30, 2022, see Virgin Am., Inc. v.

25

Bernstein, 142 S. Ct. 2903 (2022).

26

Next, turning to Ward, Horowitz argues the California Supreme Court, on June 29,

27
28

9

Horowitz does not elaborate as to the nature of the asserted similarity.
9

United States District Court
Northern District of California

1

2020, stated therein that “if a pilot or flight attendant has a designated home-base

2

airport, section 226 would apply if that airport is in California, and not if it is elsewhere.”

3

See Ward, 9 Cal. 5th at 760. The California Supreme Court’s statement, however, was

4

made in response to a question certified by the Ninth Circuit, which question did not

5

pertain to the dormant Commerce Clause, but to extraterritoriality, specifically, as

6

presented: “Does section 226 apply to wage statements provided by an out-of-state

7

employer to an employee who resides in California, receives pay in California, and pays

8

California income tax on his or her wages, but who does not work principally in California

9

or any other state?” See id. at 743. Any question raised by the district court’s holding in

10

Ward, 2016 WL 3906077, namely, whether application of § 226 “would unduly burden

11

interstate commerce,” see id. at *5, was not certified by the Ninth Circuit nor addressed

12

by the California Supreme Court in Ward.

13

That question was not answered by the Ninth Circuit until February 2, 2021, when

14

in Oman v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 835 F. App'x 272 (9th Cir. 2021), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct.

15

755 (2022), it held application of § 226 to employees “who either perform a majority of

16

their work in California or who do not perform a majority of their work in any one [s]tate

17

and are based for work purposes in California . . . does not violate the dormant

18

Commerce Clause.” See id. at 272-73. Moreover, that decision, like its decision in

19

Bernstein, was appealed, and certiorari was not denied until January 10, 2022. See

20

Delta Air Lines, Inc. v. Oman, 142 S. Ct. 755 (2022).

21

Given the above-discussed unsettled state of the law, district courts have found

22

airlines, including SkyWest, entitled to a good faith defense as to wage statements issued

23

even later than those issued to Horowitz. See Oman v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 610 F.

24

Supp. 3d 1257, 1277 (N.D. Cal. 2022) (finding Delta “entitled to a good faith defense for

25

the wage statement violations which occurred on or before January 10, 2022”); see also

26

Wilson, 2021 WL 2913656, at *3 (holding SkyWest “had a good faith belief that it was not

27

violating California law based on numerous decisions that the dormant Commerce

28

Clause precluded applying California labor laws (including section 226) to interstate
10

1

airline workers” (citing Ward, 2016 WL 3906077, at *5-6; Fitz-Gerald, 155 Cal. App. 4th at

2

422)); Ward v. United Airlines, Inc., 2022 WL 3155047, at *7 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 7, 2022)

3

(holding that “until the court of appeals decision [on February 2, 2021], United's violations

4

were not knowing and intentional”). The Court finds the reasoning set forth in such cases

5

persuasive, and, consequently, that SkyWest is entitled to a good faith defense as to the

6

wage statements here at issue.

7

Accordingly, to the extent Horowitz’s § 226 claim is based on a failure to include

8

the total number of hours worked, the Court finds SkyWest is entitled to summary

9

judgment.10
2. § 226(a)(8) – Name and Address of Employer

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10
11

To the extent the Sixth Cause of Action is based on a failure to include the name

12

and address of the employer, SkyWest asserts Horowitz is “mistaken.” (See Def.’s Mot.

13

at 6:14.) In particular, SkyWest asserts that “[a]t all times relevant to [Horowitz’s] claim

14

(and long before), SkyWest’s wage statements included SkyWest’s name and address”

15

(see Def.’s Mot. at 6:14-16), and, in support thereof, has submitted a declaration to that

16

effect (see Spagnolo Decl. ¶ 9).11

17

By “produc[ing] evidence negating an essential element of the nonmoving party's

18

claim,” SkyWest has carried “its burden of production,” see Nissan Fire & Marine Ins. Co.

19

v. Fritz Companies, Inc., 210 F.3d 1099, 1102 (9th Cir. 2000), and Horowitz has failed to

20

provide any evidence to the contrary, thus “fail[ing] to produce enough evidence to create

21

a genuine issue of material fact,” see id. at 1103 (citing Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322).

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

In light of this finding, the Court does not address herein defendants’ additional
arguments in support of dismissal of the Sixth Cause of Action. (See Def.’s Mot. at 5-6;
see also SAPA’s Joinder at 2.)
10

SkyWest explains that it cannot “print a historical wage statement for [Horowitz]
that would look identical to what [Horowitz] saw during his employment” given that in
accordance with § 226, “[t]he information required to generate pilot wage statements
exists in SkyWest’s databases solely in an electronic format, unless and until they are
printed.” (See SkyWest’s Reply Mem. of P. & A. in Supp. of Mot. for Summ. Adjudication
at 2:19-20, 3:3-5, Dkt. No. 57.)
11

11

1
2
3
4

SkyWest’s name and address, the Court finds SkyWest is entitled to summary judgment.
3. Inaccuracies
As noted, Horowitz alleges that “[b]ecause [SkyWest] failed to compensate [him]

5

for all hours worked and for any noncompliant meal or rest periods, the itemized wage

6

statements provided by [SkyWest] to [him] were inaccurate.” (See FAC ¶ 60.)

7

As also noted, SkyWest, by the instant motion, is not seeking summary judgment

8

on the First Cause of Action, namely, its alleged failure to pay wages for all hours

9

worked. Consequently, to the extent the Sixth Cause of Action is based on the First

10
11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Accordingly, to the extent Horowitz’s § 226 claim is based on a failure to include

Cause of Action, SkyWest is not entitled to summary judgment.
To the extent the Sixth Cause of Action is derivative of the Third and Fourth

12

Causes of Action, however, namely, the MRB claims, which, as discussed above, the

13

Court has found preempted by the FAA, the Sixth Cause of Action likewise is preempted,

14

and, accordingly, SkyWest is entitled to summary judgment thereon. See Estrada v.

15

Kaiser Found. Hosps., 678 F. App'x 494, 497 (9th Cir. 2017) (holding, “[g]iven that the

16

sections 222 and 226 claims are preempted, the derivative . . . claim also fails”); Jimenez

17

v. Young's Mkt. Co., LLC, 2021 WL 5999082, at *13 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 20, 2021) (holding,

18

“[b]ecause overtime pay and meal periods claims are preempted, the derivative claims of

19

failure to pay final wages and provide accurate itemized wage statements are also

20

preempted”).

21
22
23

D. Seventh and Eighth Causes of Action – Failure to Timely Pay Wages Due at
Separation; Violation of the Unfair Competition Law
The Seventh Cause of Action is brought pursuant to two sections of the California

24

Labor Code: (1) § 201, which provides, “[i]f an employer discharges an employee, the

25

wages earned and unpaid at the time of discharge are due and payable immediately . . .

26

not to exceed 72 hours,” see Cal. Lab. Code § 201, and (2) § 203, which provides, “[i]f an

27

employer willfully fails to pay . . . in accordance with [§ 201] any wages of an employee

28

who is discharged or who quits, the wages of the employee shall continue as a penalty
12

1

from the due date thereof at the same rate until paid or until an action therefor is

2

commenced; but the wages shall not continue for more than 30 days,” see § 203.
Horowitz bases the Seventh Cause of Action on allegations that SkyWest “had a

United States District Court
Northern District of California

3
4

consistent and uniform policy of willfully failing to timely pay earned wages to former

5

employees” (see FAC ¶ 65) and “willfully failed to pay . . . the sum due at the time of their

6

termination or within seventy-two (72) hours of their resignation, and failed to pay those

7

sums for thirty (30) days thereafter” (see FAC ¶ 67). The Seventh Cause of Action is

8

thus derivative of the First Cause of Action, namely, his claim alleging failure to pay

9

wages for all hours worked, as well as the Third and Fourth Causes of Action, namely,

10

his MRB claims. See Curtis v. Irwin Indus., Inc., 913 F.3d 1146, 1150 n.3 (9th Cir. 2019)

11

(finding plaintiff’s § 201 claim for “failure to pay the correct wages at termination” was

12

“derivative of [plaintiff’s] . . . meal and rest period, and . . . wage claims”).
The Eighth Cause of Action is brought pursuant to § 17200 of the California

13
14

Business and Professions Code, which prohibits, inter alia, an “unlawful, unfair or

15

fraudulent business act or practice.” See Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. Horowitz

16

bases the Eighth Cause of Action on SkyWest’s alleged violations of California Labor

17

Code § 226.7 (MRBs), § 2802 (Expenditure Reimbursement), and IWC Wage Order No.

18

9-2001 (Wages; MRBs). The Eighth Cause of Action is thus derivative of the First, Third,

19

Fourth, and Fifth Causes of Action.
To the extent the Seventh and Eighth Causes of Action are derivative of the First

20
21

Cause of Action, as to which SkyWest, as noted, has not moved, SkyWest is not entitled

22

to summary judgment. To the extent the Seventh and Eighth Causes of Action are

23

derivative of the Third and Fourth Causes of Action, which, as discussed above, the

24

Court has found are preempted by the FAA, the Seventh and Eighth Causes of Action

25

likewise are preempted. To the extent the Eighth Cause of Action is derivative of the

26

Fifth Cause of Action, namely, failure to reimburse expenditures, it fails for the reasons

27

stated above with respect to the Fifth Cause of Action.

28

//
13

1
2

The Ninth through Fourteenth Causes of Action are claims asserted under the

3

California Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”), which allows “employees [to] stand in

4

the shoes of the Labor Commissioner and recover civil penalties for Labor Code

5

violations.” See Hamilton v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 39 F.4th 575, 582 (9th Cir. 2022).

6

The Ninth Cause of Action is derivative of the First Cause of Action, on which

7

SkyWest, as noted, is not seeking summary judgment. Consequently, SkyWest is not

8

entitled to summary judgment on the Ninth Cause of Action.

9

United States District Court
Northern District of California

E. Ninth through Fourteenth Causes of Action – PAGA Claims

The Tenth, Eleventh, Twelfth, and Fourteenth Causes of Action are derivative of,

10

respectively, the Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Seventh Causes of Action, as to which the

11

Court has found SkyWest is entitled to summary judgment. Consequently, SkyWest is

12

entitled to summary judgment on these four PAGA claims as well.

13

The Thirteenth Cause of Action is derivative of the Sixth Cause of Action, namely

14

a claim under § 226 for a failure to provide accurate wage statements. “To succeed on a

15

PAGA claim for recovery of civil penalties for a violation of Section 226, [Horowitz] need

16

only establish a violation of its provisions and need not demonstrate the two additional

17

elements of a claim for statutory penalties under Section 226(e): (1) that [he] suffered

18

injury as a result of the violation and (2) that [SkyWest’s] failure to comply with Section

19

226(a) was ‘knowing and intentional.’” See Ward, 2022 WL 3155047, at *3 (citing Raines

20

v. Coastal Pac. Food Distributors, Inc., 23 Cal. App. 5th 667, 670 (2018)). Consequently,

21

although, as discussed earlier herein, SkyWest, given its good faith defense, is entitled to

22

summary judgment on the Sixth Cause of Action to the extent based on a failure to

23

include the total number of hours worked, “[t]he grant of summary judgment based on a

24

determination that [Horowitz] cannot establish a ‘knowing and intentional’ violation of

25

§ 226 does not entitle [SkyWest] to summary judgment on [Horowitz’s] PAGA claim for

26

violation of § 226(a)(2).” See Arroyo, 611 F. Supp. 3d at 846.

27

CONCLUSION

28

For the reasons stated above, SkyWest’s motion for summary adjudication is
14

1

hereby GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, as follows:

2

1. To the extent SkyWest seeks judgment in its favor on the Third, Fourth, Fifth,

3

Tenth, Eleventh, and Twelfth Causes of Action, the motion is GRANTED;

4

2. To the extent SkyWest seeks judgment in its favor on the Sixth, Seventh,

5

Eighth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Causes of Action, except insofar as said claims

6

are based on the First Cause of Action, the motion is GRANTED;

7

3. In all other respects, the motion is DENIED.

8
9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Dated: May 22, 2023
MAXINE M. CHESNEY
United States District Judge

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
15