Collins v. Gee West Seattle LLC, 631 F.3d 1001

Gee West Seattle LLC acquired several Seattle car franchises in January 2007 and began seeking a sale due to sustained losses.
On September 26, 2007, Gee West announced it would close its doors by October 7, 2007, and that only certain accounting staff would remain if a buyer was not found.
Employee departures began before closure; by October 5, 2007 only about 30 employees remained in the facilities.
Gee West ceased operations on October 5, 2007 and reopened briefly on October 6 for inspection, but the business ultimately closed; management indicated employees left because the business closed.
The district court granted summary judgment, holding that these departures were voluntary and thus not employment losses under the WARN Act, leaving fewer than 50 employees with an employment loss.
The Ninth Circuit held that departures caused by an impending closing are not voluntary departures under WARN, reversed, and remanded for reconsideration; the equitable estoppel issue was deemed moot.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does WARN's 'voluntary departure' include departures due to closing?	Collins argues departures due to closing are not voluntary.	Gee West argues departures were voluntary under the statute.	Departures caused by closing are not voluntary departures.
Was there a genuine issue of material fact on whether employees suffered an employment loss?	Employees reasonably expected loss and thus triggered WARN protections.	If departures are voluntary, no employment loss; summary judgment appropriate.	Summary judgment improper; material facts remained; remand.

Burns v. Stone Forest Indus., Inc., 147 F.3d 1182 (9th Cir. 1998) (WARN Act as wage imitation insurance; requires 60 days' pay)
Local Joint Executive Bd. of Culinary/Bartender Trust Fund v. Las Vegas, 244 F.3d 1152 (9th Cir. 2001) (damages not offset by concurrent wages; purpose of WARN)
Johnson v. TeleSpectrum Worldwide, Inc., 61 F. Supp. 2d 116 (D. Del. 1999) (burden on movant to show fifty or more employees suffered a loss)
Rowe v. Educ. Credit Mgmt. Corp., 559 F.3d 1028 (9th Cir. 2009) (statutory interpretation; plain language considerations)
Andreiu v. Ashcroft, 253 F.3d 477 (9th Cir. 2001) (statutory purposes and reasonable interpretation cautions)
United States v. Combs, 379 F.3d 564 (9th Cir. 2004) (avoid results contrary to statutory purpose; avoid superfluity)
J. & G. Sales Ltd. v. Truscott, 473 F.3d 1043 (9th Cir. 2007) (statutory interpretation standards)