Flores v. City of San Gabriel
| Decision Date | 29 August 2013 |
| Docket Number | Case No. CV 12–04884 JGB (JCGx). |
| Citation | 969 F.Supp.2d 1158 |
| Parties | Danny FLORES, Robert Barada, Kevin Watson, Vy Van, Ray Lara, Dane Woolwine, Rikimaru Nakamura, Christopher Wenzel, Cruz Hernandez, Shannon Casillas, James Just, Rene Lopez, Gilbert Lee, Steve Rodrigues, and Enrique Deanda, Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF SAN GABRIEL, and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Central District of California |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Christopher L. Gaspard, Jeremy D. Jass, Joseph Neil Bolander, Michael A. McGill, Lackie Dammeier and McGill APC, Upland, CA, for Plaintiffs.
Alexander Y. Wong, Brian P. Walter, Liebert Cassidy Whitmore, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Before the Court is the Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the alternative, Partial Summary Judgment filed by Defendant City of San Gabriel on May 13, 2013. (Doc. No. 20.) Also before the Court is Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment filed on May 13, 2013. (Doc. No. 23.) After considering the papers timely filed and the arguments presented at the August 19, 2013 hearing, the Court GRANTS Defendant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and GRANTS IN PART Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. The Court directs the parties to submit further briefing addressing the issue of liquidated damages.
Plaintiffs Danny Flores, Robert Barada, Kevin Watson, Vy van, Ray Lara, Dane Woolwine, Rikimaru Nakamura, Christopher Wenzel, Cruz Hernandez, Shannon Casillas, James Just, Rene Lopez, Gilbert Lee, Steve Rodrigues, and Enrique Deanda (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed their Complaint on June 4, 2012. (Doc. No. 1.) Defendant City of San Gabriel (“Defendant”) filed its Answer on June 26, 2012. (Doc. No. 5.)
Defendant filed its Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the alternative, Partial Summary Judgment, on May 13, 2013. (“Def. Mot.,” Doc. No. 20.) In support of its Motion, Defendant filed:
• Separate Statement of Uncontroverted Facts and Conclusions of Law (“Def. SUF,” Doc. No. 22–1);
• Declaration of Rayna Ospino (“Ospino Mot. Decl.,” Exh. 1 to Defendant's Appendix of Evidentiary Support (“Def. Mot. Appendix”), Doc. No. 21);
• Declaration of Linda Tang (“Tang Mot. Decl.,” Exh. 2 to Def. Mot. Appendix);
• Excerpts from City of San Gabriel Resolution No. 02–12, adopted January 7, 2013 ;
• Excerpts from the City of San Gabriel Salary, Compensation and Benefit Policy Manual, dated July 3, 2010 (“Policy Manual,” Exh. B to Def. Mot. Appendix); and
• Excerpts from the Memorandum of Understanding between the City of San Gabriel and the San Gabriel Police Officers' Association for 2005–2007, signed August 2, 2005 (“Mot. MOU,” Exh. C to Def. Mot. Appendix).
On June 10, 2013, Plaintiffs filed their Opposition to Defendant's Motion. (“Pl. Opp.,” Doc. No. 27.) Plaintiffs filed the following documents in support of their Opposition:
• Declaration of Joseph N. Bolander (“Bolander Opp. Decl.,” Doc. No. 27–1) attaching Exhibits A–B; and
• Statement of Genuine Disputes of Material Fact (“Pl. SGD,” Doc. No. 27–2).
Defendant filed its Reply on June 24, 2013. (“Def. Reply,” Doc. No. 31.) In support of its Reply, Defendant also filed its Objections to Plaintiffs' Evidence. (“Def. Reply Obj.,” Doc. No. 32.)
Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on May 13, 2013. (“Pl. Mot.,” Doc. No. 23.) In support of their Motion, Plaintiffs also filed the following:
• Declaration of Joseph N. Bolander (“Bolander Mot. Decl.,” Doc. No. 23–2);
• Request for Judicial Notice (“RJN,” Doc. No. 23–4).1
On June 10, 2013, Defendant filed its Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion. (“Def. Opp.,” Doc. No. 26.) Defendant filed the following documents in support of its Opposition:
• Statement of Genuine Disputes of Material Fact (“Def. SGD,” Doc. No. 26–2); • Declaration of Rayna Ospino (“Ospino Opp. Decl.,” Exh. 1 to Defendant's Appendix of Evidentiary Support in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion (“Def. Opp. Appendix”), Doc. No. 26–1);
• Declaration of Linda Tang (“Tang Opp. Decl.,” Exh. 2 to Def. Opp. Appendix);
• Declaration of Marcella Marlowe (“Marlowe Decl.,” Exh. 3 to Def. Opp. Appendix);
• Declaration of Alex Y. Wong (“Wong Decl.,” Exh. 4 to Def. Opp. Appendix);
• Excerpts from the Memorandum of Understanding Between City of San Gabriel and the San Gabriel Police Officers' Association for 2005–2007, signed August 2, 2005 (“Opp. MOU,” Exh. C to Def. Opp. Appendix); and
• Proposed Joint Stipulation of Fact (“Joint Stipulation,” Exh. D to Def. Opp. Appendix).
Plaintiffs filed their Reply on June 24, 2013. (“Pl. Reply,” Doc. No. 29.) Plaintiffs filed the following documents in support of their Reply:
• Response to Defendant's Statement of Genuine Issues (“Pl. Resp.,” Doc. No. 28); and
• Objections to Defendant's Evidence Offered in Support of Defendant's Opposition (“Pl. Reply Obj.,” Doc. No. 30.)
In their Complaint, Plaintiffs allege that they are employed as police officers in the City of San Gabriel Police Department. (Compl., ¶¶ 3–17.) The City of San Gabriel and the San Gabriel Police Officers Association entered into the Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) that allowed officers to choose a health insurance cash out option. (Compl., ¶ 19.) Pursuant to the MOU, Plaintiffs are entitled to receive cash back payments for any unused portion of their medical benefits. (Compl., ¶ 20.)
Plaintiffs have been exercising their option to receive the cash back payment for the unused portion of their medical benefits. (Compl., ¶ 23.) However, Defendant does not apply the cash back portions of Plaintiffs' unused medical benefits to their regular rate of pay. (Compl., ¶ 24.) Therefore, the rate Plaintiffs received for overtime hours worked did not include the cash back portions of Plaintiffs' unused medical benefits. (Compl., ¶ 25.) As a result, Defendant failed to pay Plaintiffs for overtime compensation at one and a half times their regular rate of pay. (Compl., ¶ 26.)
Plaintiffs' cause of action arises under the Fair Labor Standards Act “FLSA”, 29 U.S.C. § 207, et seq. Plaintiffs request an award of liquidated damages in a sum equal to the amount of the unpaid compensation pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(d) and recovery of reasonable attorney fees and costs pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). (Compl., ¶¶ 31–32.)
Defendant filed its Motion for Summary Judgment asserting the following:
• Defendant is entitled to summary judgment on the ground that payments made in lieu of benefits to employees are excluded under 29 U.S.C. § 207(e)(2) or, alternatively, under 29 U.S.C. § 207(e)(4).
• Alternatively, Defendant is entitled to partial summary judgment on the ground that it implemented a partial overtime exemption pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 207(k).
Plaintiffs filed their Motion asserting that they are entitled to partial summary judgment on the following grounds:
• Defendant cannot meet its burden of demonstrating that payments made in lieu of benefits are excluded under section 207(e)(4) since these payments are not made to a trustee or third person;
• Each Plaintiff's total monthly benefit allowance should be included in the regular rate of pay calculation because Defendant's plan does not qualify as a “bona fide” plan pursuant to section 207(e)(4);
• Plaintiffs are entitled to an award of liquidated damages; and
• Plaintiffs are entitled to a three-year statute of limitation.
For the reasons set forth below, the Court finds the following:
• Defendant's payments to Plaintiffs made in lieu of benefits are not excludable under section 207(e)(2) from the regular rate calculation;
• The payments made in lieu of benefits are also not excludable under section 207(e)(4);
• To the extent that Defendant makes contributions under the Plan to third parties, these contributions are excludable under 29 U.S.C. § 207(e)(4);
• Plaintiffs' claims are governed by a two-year statute of limitations under 29 U.S.C. § 255(a);
• Defendant is liable to Plaintiffs for FLSA overtime only to the extent that Plaintiffs worked in excess of 86 hours in a 14–day work period since Defendant implemented a partial overtime exemption pursuant to section 207(k); and
• Before the Court decides the issue of liquidated damages, the Court directs the parties to submit further briefing addressing the issue.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 empowers the Court to enter summary judgment on factually unsupported claims or defenses, and thereby “secure the just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every action.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). Summary judgment is appropriate if the “pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). A fact is material when it affects the outcome of the case. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986); Freeman v. Arpaio, 125 F.3d 732, 735 (9th Cir.1997).
The party moving for summary judgment bears the initial burden of establishing an absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548. This burden may be satisfied by either (1) presenting evidence to negate an essential element of the non-moving party's case; or (2) showing that the non-moving party has failed to sufficiently establish an essential element to the non-moving party's case. Id. at 322–23, 106 S.Ct. 2548. Where the party moving for summary judgment does not bear the burden...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Flores v. City of San Gabriel
...the regular rate of pay, except to the extent that the City makes payments to trustees or third parties. Flores v. City of San Gabriel , 969 F.Supp.2d 1158, 1169–77 (C.D. Cal. 2013) (“Flores I ”). Finding that the City's violation of the Act was not willful, however, it held that the Plaint......
- Farringer v. Colvin
-
Metro Hospitality Partners, Ltd. v. Lexington Ins. Co.
...about the value of his work as Metro's executive housekeeper or as director of human resources. Cf. Flores v. City of San Gabriel, 969 F.Supp.2d 1158, 1165 (C.D.Cal.2013) (“Given her position as the Human Resources Director and the top manager in the Human Resources Office, Ms. Marlowe woul......
-
Callahan v. City of Sanger
...should be included in the regular rate of pay. In support of their position, however, Plaintiffs rely on Flores v. City of San Gabriel, 969 F. Supp. 2d 1158 (C.D. Cal., Aug. 29, 2013). In Flores, the district court evaluated a plan similar to the one presented in this case, and held that ex......