501 F. App'x 713
9th Cir.2012Background
- Schneider appeals district court’s grant of two preliminary injunctions in favor of warehouse workers at Schneider’s facilities.
- Schneider argues it was not Appellees’ joint employer and challenges injunction scope and specificity under Rule 65.
- District court applied proper preliminary-injunction tests and found Schneider was a joint employer with likelihood of success on the merits.
- Court declined Schneider’s argument that no evidentiary hearing was necessary and found retaliation merits likely.
- Injunctive orders prohibited illegal payment, timekeeping, and recordkeeping practices and barred mass termination of Premier’s workers; district court allowed alternatives to a direct reinstatement/retention arrangement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Schneider was a joint employer and likely to succeed on the merits | Schneider—no joint-employer status | Appellees—Schneider is a joint employer with high likelihood of success | Yes; district court properly held joint-employer status and high likelihood of success |
| Whether the injunctions were properly scoped and specific under Rule 65 | Injunctions overbroad and lacked required specificity | Injunctions properly framed to preserve status quo and allow alternatives | Affirmed; scope deemed permissible and sufficiently clear despite some lack of express duties |
| Whether the remedy complied with Rule 65(d) regarding description of acts restrained | Inadequate description of duties and restrained acts | Orders sufficiently clear and not unnecessarily vague; clarify if needed | Affirmed; not invalid for lack of detailed duties; court can clarify later |
Key Cases Cited
- Chao v. A-One Med. Servs., Inc., 346 F.3d 908 (9th Cir. 2003) (joint-employer and merits considerations)
- Boucher v. Shaw, 572 F.3d 1087 (9th Cir. 2009) (multi-employer liability and standards for injunctions)
- Martinez v. Combs, 231 P.3d 259 (Cal. 2010) (california wage-and-hour joint-employer issues)
- Fortyune v. American Multi-Cinema, Inc., 364 F.3d 1075 (9th Cir. 2004) ( Rule 65(d) clarity standard for injunctions)