Cal. Hotels & Lodging Ass'n v. City of Oakland
Decision Date | 26 June 2019 |
Docket Number | Case No. 19-cv-01232-WHO |
Parties | CALIFORNIA HOTELS AND LODGING ASSOCIATION, Plaintiff, v. The CITY OF OAKLAND, Defendant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of California |
Spencer W. Waldron, Jeffrey Richard Thurrell, Melissa Rose Shimizu, Fisher & Phillips, LLP, Irvine, CA, Aaron Franklin Olsen, Darcey Meredith Groden, Fisher & Phillips, LLP, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff.
Karen Ann Getman, Kristen Mah Rogers, Remcho, Johansen & Purcell, LLP, Maria Bee, Oakland City Attorney's Office, Oakland, CA, Catha Alison Worthman, Nina Rachel Wasow, Feinberg Jackson Worthman & Wasow LLP, Berkeley, CA, for Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO DISMISS; DENYING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
In November 2018, voters in the City of Oakland (the "City") passed Measure Z to impose new requirements on hotel operators in the City by adding Chapter 5.93 to the Oakland Municipal Code. Complaint ("Compl.") at ¶ 1 [Dkt. No. 1]. Plaintiff California Hotel & Lodging Association ("CHLA") filed a complaint to enjoin enforcement of Section 5.93.030(B) (hereinafter the "Room Cleaner Provision"), arguing that it is preempted by state occupational and health standards. CHLA also seeks to enjoin Section 5.93.040 (hereinafter the "Wage/Benefit Provision") as preempted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. Section 1001 et seq. It seeks declaratory relief on both provisions and moves for summary judgment on its claims. Defendant City and defendant intervenor Unite Here Local 2850's (the "Union") filed separate motions to dismiss the complaint. I heard argument on each motion on June 19, 2019. Preemption does not apply, the challenged provisions are not vague, and for the reasons below, I deny CHLA's motion, grant the motions of both the City and the Union, and dismiss this case.
Measure Z asked voters the following question:
Shall the measure amending Oakland's Municipal Code to: (1) establish workplace protections and minimum hourly wage of $15 with benefits or $20 without benefits, increasing annually with inflation, for employees of Oakland hotels with 50 or more guest rooms; (2) authorize administrative enforcement standards for hotel and non-hotel workers; and (3) create City department to administratively enforce Oakland's employment standards for hotel and non-hotel workers, be adopted?
Id. at ¶ 11. After approval by the voters, Chapter 5.93 (the "Ordinance") was added to the Oakland Municipal Code. It applies to "hotel employers" and "hotel employees." A hotel employer is defined as "a person who owns, controls, and/or operates a hotel in the City of Oakland." Section 5.93.010. A hotel employee is defined as "any individual (1) who is employed directly by the hotel employer or by a person who has contracted with the hotel employer to provide services at a hotel in the City of Oakland; and (2) who was hired to or did work an average 5 hours/week for 4 weeks at one or more hotels." Id. Room cleaners are a subset of hotel employees "whose principal duties are to clean and put in order residential guest rooms in a hotel, regardless of who employs the person." Id.
Under the heading "Humane workload," the Room Cleaner Provision states:
Section 5.93.030. The Room Cleaner Provision went into effect on December 21, 2018. Compl. at ¶ 12.
Measure Z also supplemented enforcement mechanisms codified in Section 5.92.050 to include a $50 penalty per employee, per day, for violations of the Room Cleaner Provision, with the penalty amount to be updated annually for inflation. Section 5.92.050(G)(2). Hotel employees were also given a private right of action to seek damages and could recover penalties for alleged violations, attorneys' fees, and costs if they were the prevailing party in a civil action. Section 5.92.050(G)(3).
The Wage/Benefit Provision states:
Section 5.93.040. It is effective on July 1, 2019. Compl. at ¶ 12. Hotel employers are required to maintain detailed records and "proof of health benefits" for three years. Section 5.93.050(A). If the hotel employer does not provide access to these records, "it shall be presumed ... [that] the hotel employer paid the hotel employee no more than the applicable federal or minimum wage." Section 5.93.050(B)(3).
On March 7, 2019, CHLA filed a complaint against the City containing four causes of action. The first cause of action is for declaratory relief and an injunction against the Room Cleaner Provision as preempted by the California Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1973. Compl. at ¶¶ 34-55. The second cause of action seeks declaratory relief and an injunction against both the Room Cleaner Provision and the Wage/Benefit Provision for being unconstitutionally vague under the United States Constitution's due process clause. Id. at ¶¶ 56-63. The third cause of action is duplicative of the second cause of action but is based on the California Constitution's due process clause. Id. at ¶¶ 64-71. The fourth cause of action seeks declaratory and injunctive relief against the Wage/Benefit Provision as being preempted by ERISA. Id. at ¶¶ 72-78.
On April 19, 2019, I issued an order granting the Union's unopposed motion to intervene. [Dkt. No. 21]. On May 10, 2019, CHLA moved for summary judgment on all of its claims. [Dkt. No. 26]. That same day, the Union and the City filed separate motions to dismiss. [Dkt. Nos. 27, 28]. Because the three motions depend on essentially the same arguments, they will be considered together.
Summary judgment is appropriate "if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). In order to prevail, a party moving for summary judgment must show the absence of a genuine issue of material fact with respect to an essential element of the non-moving party's claim, or to a defense on which the non-moving party will bear the burden of persuasion at trial. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett , 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). Once the movant has made this showing, the burden then shifts to the party opposing summary judgment to identify "specific facts showing there is a genuine issue for trial." Id. The party opposing summary judgment must then present affirmative evidence from which a jury could return a verdict in that party's favor. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby , 477 U.S. 242, 257, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986).
On summary judgment, the court draws all reasonable factual inferences in favor of the non-movant. Id. at 255, 106 S.Ct. 2505. In deciding a motion for summary judgment, "[c]redibility determinations, the weighing of the evidence, and the drawing of legitimate inferences from the facts are jury functions, not those of a judge." Id. However, conclusory and speculative testimony does not raise genuine issues of fact and is insufficient to defeat summary judgment. See Thornhill Publ'g Co., Inc. v. GTE Corp. , 594 F.2d 730, 738 (9th Cir. 1979).
A motion to dismiss filed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) is a challenge to the court's subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). "Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction," and it is "presumed that a cause lies outside this limited jurisdiction." Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. of Am. , 511 U.S. 375, 377, 114 S.Ct. 1673, 128 L.Ed.2d 391 (1994). The party invoking the jurisdiction of the federal...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
CDK Global LLC v. Brnovich, No. CV-19-04849-PHX-GMS
...attack on a statute when it is surely valid in the vast majority of its intended applications." California Hotels & Lodging Ass'n v. City of Oakland , 393 F. Supp. 3d 817, 833 (N.D. Cal. 2019). Claim Six is accordingly dismissed.2. Takings Clause Determining what constitutes a "taking" for ......
-
Columbia Sussex Mgmt., LLC v. City of Santa Monica
...Board") with the sole authority to adopt occupational safety and health standards. See California Hotels & Lodging Ass'n v. City of Oakland , 393 F. Supp. 3d 817, 824 (N.D. Cal. 2019) (" CHLA Oakland "). In Sherwin-Williams Co. v. City of Los Angeles , 4 Cal. 4th 893, 16 Cal.Rptr.2d 215, 84......
- Semicaps Pte Ltd. v. Hamamatsu Corp.
-
Columbia Sussex Mgmt. v. City of Santa Monica, Case No. 2:19-CV-09991-ODW (SKx)
...that have considered and rejected Plaintiffs' arguments under similar facts. (Opp'n 21 (citing Cal. Hotels & Lodging Ass'n v. City of Oakland, 393 F. Supp. 3d 817 (N.D. Cal. 2019) ("CHLA"); Woodfin, 2006 WL 2739309, at *18).). In CHLA, the court considered an Oakland ordinance, similar to t......