Calop Business Systems, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles
984 F. Supp. 2d 981
C.D. Cal.2013Background
- Calop sued the City of Los Angeles and fictitious defendants claiming due process and California constitutional rights, ERISA, the Deregulation Act, the RLA, and Labor Code violations related to the Living Wage Ordinance (LWO).
- The LWO, enacted in 1997, requires certain airport employers to pay a higher wage and provide health benefits, with a supersession clause allowing collective bargaining agreements to supersede the ordinance.
- Calop, a security subcontractor at LAX, had a 2010 wage/healthcare agreement with SEIU and faced EEO enforcement finding noncompliance for January–February 2010, resulting in back wages.
- COLA moved for summary judgment on multiple claims on July 16, 2013; Calop cross-moved for Rule 11 sanctions on July 25, 2013.
- The court conducted Rule 201 judicial notice of LWO texts and related government documents, and treated some EEO letters as evidence rather than judicial notice.
- The court granted summary judgment for COLA on Calop’s five claims and denied sanctions against COLA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether LWO is void for vagueness facially | Calop argues LWO supersession and health-benefits terms are vague as applied to it. | COLA contends the challenge is facial and the terms are clear on their face. | LWO not vague on its face; upheld as not unconstitutionally vague. |
| ERISA preemption of LWO | Calop contends LWO is preempted because it references health benefits plans. | COLA argues LWO regulates wages, not ERISA plans, and has no preemption effect under ERISA. | LWO not preempted by ERISA. |
| Deregulation Act preemption of LWO | Calop claims LWO affects airline labor costs and thus preempts under ADA. | COLA argues no acute effect on prices/routes/services; LWO allows CBAs and does not dictate outcomes. | LWO not preempted by the Deregulation Act. |
| RLA preemption of LWO | Calop asserts LWO impedes RLA processes for airline/rail labor relations. | COLA maintains LWO does not frustrate RLA and allows CBAs; not a CBAs-interpretation case. | LWO not preempted by the RLA. |
| Standing to challenge LWO § 90.5/223/2810 claims | Calop claims taxpayer and/or aggrieved employee standing to pursue state-law claims under Labor Code sections. | COLA argues Calop lacks employee status and taxpayer standing; lacks standing under 2810 and 526a. | Calop lacks standing; claims dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104 (U.S. 1972) (void-for-vagueness standard; heightened scrutiny where First Amendment implicated)
- Hunt v. City of Los Angeles, 638 F.3d 703 (9th Cir. 2011) (vagueness standards; impermissible delegation and standard-of-care concerns)
- Aetna Health Inc. v. Davila, 542 U.S. 200 (U.S. 2004) (ERISA preemption framework; reference/connection test)
- WSB Electric, Inc. v. Curry, 88 F.3d 788 (9th Cir. 1996) (ERISA preemption; wage laws and health-benefit references)
- Morales v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 504 U.S. 374 (U.S. 1992) (Deregulation Act preemption framework; scope of 'related to' analysis)
- RUI One Corp. v. City of Berkeley, 371 F.3d 1137 (9th Cir. 2004) (statutory preemption of living wage provisions; opt-out not delegation)