Mendoza v. Fonseca McElroy Grinding Co. Inc., 3:15-cv-05143

Plaintiffs were union operating engineers employed by Fonseca McElroy Grinding (FMG) and later Granite Rock on California public works road projects; they operated milling machines on-site and performed offsite "mobilization" tasks (loading, securing, truck checks, transporting milling machines to/from Granite Rock/FMG yards).
Plaintiffs were paid DIR prevailing wage rates for on-site operation of milling machines but were paid a lower "Lowbed Transport" rate under a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the union for the offsite mobilization work.
The MOA applied to mobilization work and acknowledged DIR could later determine noncompliance; Granite Rock and FMG were signatories to the MOA and the Master Agreement.
Plaintiffs sued, asserting among other claims that mobilization work was subject to California prevailing wage law; the court considered cross-motions for partial summary judgment limited to that prevailing-wage issue.
Key undisputed facts: the yards/storage locations where mobilization occurred were permanent and not established for any particular public works project; no public-works contracts or industry customs were presented showing the mobilization was required by the contracts.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether offsite mobilization (loading, securing, truck checks, transporting milling machines from permanent yards) is "in the execution of" a public works contract and thus covered by California prevailing wage law	Mobilization is integral: without the machine on-site the contract cannot be executed; travel/transport time is compensable under DIR guidance; applying prevailing wage furthers protective purpose	Mobilization is independent, performed at permanent yards not dedicated to projects and thus not an integrated part of the construction "flow"; MOA properly set lower transport rate	Court held mobilization work is not "in the execution" of the public works contracts and not subject to prevailing wage; granted defendant summary judgment and denied plaintiffs’ motion

O.G. Sansone Co. v. Department of Transportation, 55 Cal. App. 3d 434 (explains when hauling is integral to a public works contract)
Williams v. SnSands Corp., 156 Cal. App. 4th 742 (sets factors for whether offsite transport is integral to execution of contract)
Sheet Metal Workers’ Int’l Ass’n, Local 104 v. Duncan, 229 Cal. App. 4th 192 (offsite fabrication at permanent, nonexclusive facilities not covered by prevailing wage)
Lusardi Constr. Co. v. Aubry, 1 Cal. 4th 976 (overview of prevailing wage law purpose and statutory interpretation approach)
Morillion v. Royal Packing Co., 22 Cal. 4th 575 (travel time may be compensable when employees are under employer control)
H.B. Zachry Co. v. United States, 344 F.2d 352 (Davis–Bacon context: bona fide material suppliers and limits on coverage)