Sarviss v. General Dynamics Information Technology

• Decision Date: 14 July 2009
• Docket Number: Case No. CV 08-01484 DDP (CWx).
• Citation: 663 F.Supp.2d 883
• Parties: John D. SARVISS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. GENERAL DYNAMICS INFOMATION TECHNOLOGY, INC., Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Central District of California

663 F.Supp.2d 883

John D. SARVISS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. GENERAL DYNAMICS INFOMATION TECHNOLOGY, INC., Defendant.

Case No. CV 08-01484 DDP (CWx).

United States District Court, C.D. California.

July 14, 2009.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Abigail Ameri Treanor, D. Alan Harris, Matthew E. Kavanaugh, Harris and Ruble, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff.

Benjamin Juhyeok Kim, Framroze M. Virjee, Michael W. Garrison, Jr., O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant.

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DENING MOTION FOR CERTIFICTION OF COLLECTIVE ACTION, AND DENYING MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

[Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment filed on April 6, 2009; Plaintiff's Motions filed March 27, 2009]

DEAN D. PREGERSON, District Judge.

This matter comes before the Court on three motions filed by the parties. Plaintiff John D. Sarviss ("Sarviss" or "Plaintiff"), who brings this wage and hour case as a purported class action and collective action, has filed a Motion for Certification of a Collective Action as to his Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") claims and a Motion for Class Certification of his California state wage and hour claims. In addition to opposing Plaintiff's certification motions, Defendant General Dynamics Information Technology ("GDIT" or "Defendant") moves for summary judgment on Plaintiffs claims. After reviewing the materials submitted by the parties, hearing oral argument, and considering the issues raised in both, the Court grants in part and denies in part Defendant's Motion and denies Plaintiff's Motions for the reasons stated below.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed this action in California state court on January 28, 2008 against his former employer, GDIT. GDIT provides information technology solutions and services to military,, government, and commercial customers within the United States and around the world, including, as relevant to Sarviss, in connection with some of the United States' defense and homeland security projects. Def.'s Statement of Uncontroverted Facts and Conclusions of Law, ¶ 1; Pl.'s Statement of Genuine Issues in Opp'n to Def. Statement, ¶ 1. Defendant removed the action to this Court on March 3, 2008.

A. Plaintiff John Sarviss and His Employment with GDIT¹

In late April or early May 2007, Plaintiff John Sarviss saw and responded to a GDIT job posting on the internet for "qualified AH-1F and UH-1H/Bell 412 helicopter pilots to support [GDIT's] aviation requirements in [P]akistan." DSUF ¶ 2 (quoting Garrison Decl., Ex. A at 170); PSGI ¶ 2. AH-1F and UH-1H/Bell 412 are models of helicopters used for military and defense purposes. Id. The job posting required candidates to "be recognized as an Army Master Aviator and be qualified as either an SIP or IP with in-depth experience using NVGs."² Id. at ¶ 4 (quoting Garrison Decl., Ex. A at 170). An "Army Master Aviator" must have 2,000 flight hours. Id. at ¶ 5. The terms "SIP" and "IP" are acronyms for Standardized Instructor Pilot and Instructor Pilot, respectively. Id. at ¶ 6. In addition to being a pilot instructor, an SIP typically ensures that flight standards are consistent for all of the IPs. Id.

Plaintiff John Sarviss is a California resident and a former United States Army helicopter pilot. Compl. ¶ 1; Garrison Decl., Ex. A at 169. Sarviss had approximately eight times the flight hours required to be considered an Army Master Aviator, and his background and training included coursework to become an SIP and training and experience working with NVGs. DSUF ¶ 7; PSGI ¶ 7. Sarviss had flown helicopters, including AH-1F and UH-1H/Bell412 helicopters, for more than 16,000 hours and had approximately 4,700 hours flying at night and 260 hours of flying with NVGs. Id. at ¶ 8.

On or about May 14, 2007, GDIT hired Sarviss to work with the team of NVG helicopter pilot trainers in Pakistan. Id. at ¶ 9. Plaintiffs job title was "Operations Analyst V," a salaried position classified as exempt from overtime by GDIT, and he held no other positions with GDIT. DSUF ¶ 11.³ On the basis of the mission summary, Sarviss understood that his job would be "training Pakistani helicopter pilots in night vision goggle combat tactics in support of the global war on terror." Garrison Decl., Ex. A (Sarviss Deposition) at 30:8-12.

GDIT's contract with the U.S. Government required Sarviss to complete his training before deploying to Pakistan. DSUF ¶ 14; PSGI ¶ 14. Immediately after being hired, from May 14 to May 18, 2007, Sarviss attended the U.S. Army Security Assistance Team Training Orientation Course at Fort Bragg, North Carolina. Id. at ¶ 13. These training sessions, which included other trainees deploying to countries all over the world, addressed topics related to Sarviss's mission, including an orientation about Pakistan, counter-surveillance, counter-terrorism procedures, weapons training, and hostage survival. Id. at ¶ 15. The training courses at Fort Bragg lasted one work week for eight hours each day. Garrison Decl., Ex. A at 50:18-22. Sarviss claims that he spent an additional 20 hours that week engaging in tasks to prepare for his deployment, including obtaining equipment at Pope Air Force Base, filling out additional paperwork, receiving the necessary vaccinations, and obtaining his passport, visa, and contractor access card. DSUF ¶ 18; PSGI ¶ 18. Shortly after completing the training at Fort Bragg, Sarviss attended a five-day flight safety course in the Dallas/Forth Worth, Texas area. Id. at ¶ 19. The course was provided by a third party and served as a refresher training for flying the Bell 412 helicopter in which Sarviss would be training members of the Pakistani Air Force. Id. at ¶ 20. While at that training, Sarviss attended the course from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. each day and was provided two 15-minute rest breaks and a 30-minute lunch break. Garrison Decl., Ex. A at 61:8-62:2. At night, Plaintiff attended flight simulation exercises for another 1.5-2.5 hours. DSUF ¶ 22; PSGI ¶ 22.

After completing the training course in Texas, Sarviss returned to his home in California to await deployment to Pakistan. Id. at ¶ 23. He waited there for approximately two weeks, during which time he was not asked to work more than 8 hours per day or 40 hours per week and during which time he was not denied any meal or rest periods. Id. at ¶¶ 23, 25, 26. While awaiting deployment in California, Plaintiff received his base salary. DSUF ¶ 12; PSGI ¶ 12. During that time, Sarviss spent time preparing for his deployment and purchased supplies; the parties dispute whether these activities were at Sarviss's "own initiative." Id. at ¶¶ 12, 24.

During the first week of June 2007, Sarviss deployed to Pakistan, where he remained for around 90 days. Garrison Decl., Ex. A at 88:15-89:1. Sarviss described his "primary job" while in Pakistan as "keep[ing] myself and my co-pilot alive because of their lack of knowledge on how to operate an aircraft at night." Garrison Decl., Ex. A at 92:6-8. The parties dispute the amount of "teaching" or "training" Sarviss actually did while in Pakistan. DSUF ¶ 29; PSGI ¶ 29. GDIT employee John Landis taught classes on the ground. At the very least, however, Sarviss admits that he "was the first person to come [to Pakistan] and within one week of being [there] was actually training students and had met Lieutenant Colonel Shahid's approval." Garrison Reply Decl., Ex. A (Sarviss Depo.) at 51:6-10; see Garrison Decl., Ex. A (Sarviss Depo.) at 121:1-10; id. at 128; see also DSUFR at 29-31. During a training flight, Sarviss typically would put NVGs on the trainee and give him the controls to the helicopter. Sarviss constantly monitored the helicopter's instruments, and took the controls away from the pilot if necessary. Sarviss also checked to ensure that the pilot trainee was interpreting the terrain correctly through the NVG. DSUF ¶ 31; PSGI ¶ 31. While in Pakistan, Sarviss instituted a rule with the trainees that a pilot should return the helicopter with 700 pounds of fuel remaining. Garrison Decl., Ex. A at 149:21-150:7. Sarviss was required to rely upon his thirty-plus years of military and civilian experience and training while flying with Pakistani trainees. DSUF ¶ 36. Sarviss also prepared instrument approaches for "divert" fields; located a survival escape and evasion area, and created and put into place a plan; and conducted approximately 10 "captain check rides," during which he would evaluate and certify a trainee as an aircraft commander. DSUF ¶ 33.⁴ Sarviss claims the Pakistani Air Force made him the SIP for the entire squadron, but the parties dispute whether this was within the scope of his GDIT assignment. DSUF ¶ 34; PSGI ¶ 34.

While in Pakistan, Sarviss frequently worked in excess of 8 hours per day and 40 hours per week. In some weeks, he worked in excess of 70 or 80 hours per week. DSUFR at 59-60.

On July 17, 2007, Sarviss tendered his resignation to GDIT. DSUF ¶ 37; PSGI ¶ 37. In that letter, Sarviss stated that he "still ha[d] not been reimbursed for expenses incurred on your behalf over 60 days ago for several thousand dollars." DSUFR at 67. On or about August 7, 2007, Sarviss submitted an amended resignation letter seeking to move his last day of employment to September 4, 2007. DSUF ¶ 37; PSGI ¶ 37.

During his employment with GDIT, GDIT paid Sarviss an annual salary of $83,200.00, paid biweekly at $3,200.00 per pay period. Id. at ¶ 39. GDIT paid Sarviss his base salary while he attended training in North Carolina and Texas and also while he was at home in California waiting to deploy to Pakistan. Id. While working in Pakistan, in addition to his base salary, GDIT paid Sarviss an additional 25% of his base salary for "Danger Pay," an additional 20% "Hardship Differential," and a full $30,000 contractual "completion" bonus. Id. at ¶¶ 40-41. Plaintiff's actual pay can be summarized...