Gallardo v. Aig Domestic Claims, Inc., 102815 FED9, 13-56358
|Party Name:||FRANK GALLARDO, an individual on behalf of himself, and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. AIG DOMESTIC CLAIMS, INC., a Delaware corporation; CHARTIS CLAIMS, INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendants-Appellees.|
|Judge Panel:||Before: PREGERSON and TROTT, Circuit Judges and STAFFORD, Senior District Judge.|
|Case Date:||October 28, 2015|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit|
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Submitted October 22, 2015 [**] Pasadena, California
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Cormac J. Carney, District Judge, Presiding, No. 8:12-cv-01107-CJC-AN
Appellant Frank Gallardo ("Gallardo") appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of appellee AIG Domestic Claims ("AIG Claims").1 Specifically, Gallardo appeals (1) the district court's finding that Gallardo-a hearing representative for AIG Claims-was properly classified as an exempt administrative employee; and (2) the district court's refusal to admit into evidence Gallardo's expert report. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
I. Gallardo Is An Exempt Administrative Employee
We review grants of summary judgment de novo. Bothell v. Phase Metrics, Inc., 299 F.3d 1120, 1124 (9th Cir. 2002). What Gallardo did as an employee is a question of fact we review for clear error, but whether Gallardo's activities exempted him from overtime benefits is a question of law we review de novo. Id. We must determine if the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, raises any genuine issues of material fact. Id. at 1124. Here, the district court properly found that there were no genuine issues of material fact, nor did the court err in holding that AIG Claims had established as a matter of law that Gallardo was properly classified as an exempt administrative employee.
Gallardo's job duties meet all five elements required to satisfy the test for administrative exemption. See Campbell v. PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP, 642 F.3d 820, 831 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing Cal. Code Regs. tit. 8, § 11040(1)(A)(2) (codified version of Wage Order No. 4-2001, § (1)(A)(2))).2 First, Gallardo performed work directly related to AIG's management policies or business operations, i.e., his work was qualitatively administrative and of substantial importance to the...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP