Ramirez v. United Rentals, Inc.

Filing 101

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 86 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 96 Motion to Stay. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 7/11/2014. (ejdlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/11/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

9

SAN JOSE DIVISION

10
11

DANIEL RAMIREZ,
Plaintiff,

12
13
14

v.
UNITED RENTALS, INC., and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive,

15
16

Defendants.

17
18

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 5:10-CV-04374-EJD
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
STAY; ORDER GRANTING IN PART
AND DENYING IN PART
DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT

[Re: Docket Item Nos. 86, 96]

Presently before the Court are Defendant United Rentals’ (“Defendant”) Motion to Stay and

19

Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff Daniel Ramirez’s (“Plaintiff”) Amended Complaint

20

(“AC”). Docket Item Nos. 86, 96.

21

Plaintiff filed a putative class action on September 28, 2010, alleging that Defendant failed

22

to provide him with duty-free meal and rest breaks or compensate him for missed breaks as

23

proscribed by California’s meal and rest break laws. Docket Item No. 1, Ex. A. Plaintiff’s

24

complaint sets forth seven causes of action: (1) unpaid overtime in violation of Cal. Lab. Code §

25

510(a); (2) failure to pay minimum wage pursuant to Cal. Lab. Code §§ 1182.12, 1194, 1194.2,

26

1197; (3) failure to pay all wages upon separation per Cal. Lab. Code §§ 201 et seq.; (4) failure to

27

provide meal and rest periods per Cal. Lab. Code § 226.7; (5) failure to provide accurate itemized
1
Case No. 5:10-CV-04374-EJD
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STAY; ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN
PART DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

28

1

wage statement per Cal. Lab. Code § 226(a), (e), (g); (6) unfair business practices under Cal. Bus.

2

& Prof. Code §§ 17200, et seq.; and (7) unjust enrichment.

3

Class certification was denied in 2013 (Docket Item No. 61) and Defendant filed the
present Motion for Summary Judgment on March 25, 2014 (Dkt. No. 86). Defendant argues that

5

Plaintiff’s claims must be dismissed because he cannot allege violations of California’s labor laws.

6

Defendant claims that because it is a motor carrier governed by the Department of Transportation

7

(“DOT”) and Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (“FMCSA”) Regulations, Plaintiff’s

8

Hours of Service (“HOS”) were regulated by the DOT and fall within the Motor Carrier Exemption

9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

4

to California’s Industrial Welfare Commission Order 9-2001 Regulating the Wages, Hours and

10

Working Conditions in the Transportation Industry (“Wage Order 9”), 8 Cal. Code Regs. §

11

11090(3)(L). Defendant further argues that Plaintiff’s claims predicated on California’s meal and

12

rest break laws are preempted by the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994

13

(“FAAAA”).

14

For its argument concerning preemption under the FAAAA, Defendant heavily relies on the

15

decision issued in Dilts v. Penske Logistics, LLC, 819 F. Supp. 2d 1109 (S.D. Cal. 2011). That

16

decision was reversed two days ago by the Ninth Circuit (Dilts v. Penske Logistics, LLC, No. 12-

17

55705, 2014 WL 3291749 (9th Cir. July 9, 2014)) and now Defendant asks for a stay of the action

18

pending the court’s mandate. However, this Court finds it unnecessary to stay the action at this

19

time and the request to stay is DENIED.

20

As such, the Court now turns to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. A motion for

21

summary judgment should be granted if “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the

22

movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); Addisu v. Fred Meyer,

23

Inc., 198 F.3d 1130, 1134 (9th Cir. 2000). The moving party bears the initial burden of informing

24

the court of the basis for the motion and identifying the portions of the pleadings, depositions,

25

answers to interrogatories, admissions, or affidavits that demonstrate the absence of a triable issue

26

of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986).

27
28

2
Case No. 5:10-CV-04374-EJD
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STAY; ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN
PART DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT