Dilts v. Penske Logistics LLC
819 F. Supp. 2d 1109
S.D. Cal.2011Background
- This is a California class action by 349 hourly Penske appliance delivery drivers and installers against Penske for meal/rest breaks, overtime, expense reimbursement, and wages under California law.
- Lead plaintiffs worked at Whirlpool-related California facilities and duties included loading, transporting within California, and installing appliances; no cross-state travel occurred.
- Penske allegedly had a policy of automatically deducting 30 minutes for meals, without confirming actual uninterrupted meals, and policy prohibited leaving trucks unattended during breaks.
- Plaintiffs alleged routine nonpayment or mispayment of meal/rest periods under California Labor Code sections 226.6 and 512 and related IWC orders; class certification occurred previously.
- Penske moved for partial summary judgment arguing California meal/rest break laws are preempted by the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act (FAAA) as applied to motor carriers; plaintiffs opposed, seeking denial and strike of declarations.
- The court granted judicial notice of a FMCSA preemption determination, denied plaintiffs’ strike motions, and granted Penske partial summary judgment on preemption of the California meal/rest break claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the M&RB laws are preempted by the FAAA Act | Plaintiffs contend FAAA preempts state meal/rest rules that affect motor carrier routes/prices. | Penske argues M&RB laws are within FAAA preemption scope and significantly affect prices/routes/services. | M&RB laws are preempted by FAAA as to the disputed claims. |
| Whether intrastate Penske activities fall within the FAAA Act scope | Plaintiffs claim intrastate activities are not covered by FAAA. | Penske asserts Penske's activities fall within FAAA's motor carrier regulation scope. | Penske's intrastate activities fall within the FAAA Act's scope. |
| Whether the California M&RB laws fall within the 'related to' price/route/service preemption | M&RB laws do not relate to price/route/service as defined by FAAA. | M&RB laws significantly impact routes/services, thus relate to price/route/service. | M&RB laws are 'related to' prices/routes/services and are preempted. |
| Whether the safety-exception to preemption applies | They argue the safety exception shields M&RB laws from preemption. | Safety exception does not apply to general labor/health rules not tailored to motor vehicle safety. | Safety exception does not apply; preemption stands. |
| Whether judicial estoppel bars preemption argument | Penske litigated wages without breaks, implying non-preemption. | Dual positions are not inconsistent and do not create estoppel. | Judicial estoppel does not apply. |
Key Cases Cited
- Morales v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 504 U.S. 374 (1992) (broad 'related to' preemption standard under FAAA/ADA language)
- Rowe v. New Hampshire, 552 U.S. 364 (2008) (four guiding principles for preemption; broad scope of 'related to')
- American Trucking Assns., Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 660 F.3d 384 (9th Cir. 2011) (borderline preemption analysis; indirect effects on prices/routes/services)
- Air Transport Ass'n of Am. v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 266 F.3d 1064 (9th Cir. 2001) (preemption where regulation binds carrier to price/route/service)
- Morales v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 504 U.S. 374 (1992) (see Morales; interpret preemption language consistently)