Joseluis Alcantar v. Hobart Service
800 F.3d 1047
| 9th Cir. | 2015Background
- Plaintiff Joséluis Alcantar (service technician) sued Hobart Service and parent ITW claiming unpaid commute time (when using Hobart vehicles) and missed meal/rest breaks under California law; sought class certification for technicians.
- Hobart issues service vehicles stocked with tools/parts; technicians sign vehicle-use agreements allowing commuting in vehicles or leaving them at branch, but restricting personal use and imposing discipline for violations.
- Hobart pays for travel between jobs and for commutes in company vehicles only to the extent they exceed the technician’s normal commute to the branch office; technicians are responsible for tools/parts and Hobart concedes limited secured parking at branches.
- District court denied class certification, granted summary judgment for Hobart on the commute-time claim, found triable issues on meal/rest breaks, and later entered summary judgment against Alcantar’s PAGA claim for inadequate pre-suit notice.
- Ninth Circuit: affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded — reversed the denial of class certification for the commute-time claim and reversed the grant of summary judgment on the factual question whether technicians were practically required to commute in company vehicles; affirmed summary judgment dismissing the PAGA claim for inadequate notice; affirmed denial of class certification under Rule 23(b)(3) for the meal/rest-break claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Class certification — commute-time commonality | Technicians share common contention that parking shortages and vehicle rules effectively force commuting in company vehicles, creating common legal question | No company-wide requirement to commute in company vehicles; lack of uniform policy defeats commonality | District court erred; Ninth Circuit reversed denial — common contention exists suitable for classwide resolution (Rule 23(a)) |
| Class certification — meal/rest breaks (predominance) | Systemic policies/practices caused missed breaks across class | Break violations depend on individual circumstances (why breaks were missed) | Affirmed denial under Rule 23(b)(3): individual issues would predominate, so class not suitable |
| Summary judgment — commute-time compensability | Technicians are under employer control during commute in company vehicles and, as a practical matter, are required to use them due to risk/liability for tools | Use of vehicles is voluntary; employees may leave vehicles at branch per policy; Hobart’s theft-liability policy and parking options negate coercion | Reversed summary judgment; factual dispute (whether choice to leave vehicles was illusory) must go to jury — issue of practical compulsion exists |
| Summary judgment — PAGA notice sufficiency | Alcantar’s pre-suit letter identified Labor Code sections and alleged violations | Letter was sufficient notice of claims to employer and LWDA | Affirmed summary judgment for defendants: notice letter was conclusory and lacked facts/theories required by Cal. Lab. Code §2699.3(a)(1) |
Key Cases Cited
- Morillion v. Royal Packing Co., 22 Cal.4th 575 (California Supreme Court 2000) (employer control over transportation can make commute time compensable)
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (U.S. 2011) (class-certification rigorous-analysis and common-question requirement)
- Amgen Inc. v. Conn. Ret. Plans & Trust Funds, 133 S. Ct. 1184 (U.S. 2013) (limits on merits inquiries at certification stage)
- Overton v. Walt Disney Co., 136 Cal.App.4th 263 (California Court of Appeal 2006) (employees free choice to use employer transport defeats Morillion-based claim)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (summary-judgment standard — reasonable jury inquiry)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment appropriate when nonmoving party fails to make required showing)