Reinhardt v. Gemini Motor Transport
2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 58039
E.D. Cal.2012Background
- Reinhardt and Armstrong were Gemini delivery drivers employed in California; Reinhardt worked from 2006–2010 and Armstrong from 2006–2011.
- Plaintiffs allege multiple wage-and-hour, contract, and public policy claims arising from Gemini’s pay structure and failure to provide meal/rest breaks.
- Gemini paid flat-rate per delivery and did not compensate for significant non-driving work; there were alleged reductions in daily minimum pay and elimination of certain pay categories.
- Company policy used an on-board computer and GPS to monitor drivers, with time pressures and directions to complete deliveries without breaks.
- Plaintiffs remained employed after notice of pay reductions, raising questions on at-will employment and implied covenant implications.
- Gemini moved to dismiss eight of ten causes of action and to strike disgorgement, with court addressing preemption, wage, contract, UCL, and disgorgement issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does FAAAA preempt California meal/rest breaks? | Plaintiffs contend preemption does not apply to meal/rest laws. | Gemini argues preemption applies because meal/rest laws affect routes/prices of motor carriers. | Denial of dismissal; preemption not decided at this stage. |
| Is Labor Code § 1194 claim viable given piece-rate pay? | Plaintiffs allege non-completed tasks unpaid under any pay rubric violate minimum wage. | Piece-rate payments cover compensation; Armenia doesn't apply. | Denied; § 1194 claim viable as to activities not compensated by any rubric. |
| Do breach of contract and good faith/fair dealing claims survive after changes to pay terms? | Changes violated implied covenant and contract terms; continued employment negates acceptance. | At-will employment allows unilateral changes; continued employment implies acceptance. | Dismissal with leave to amend for hostile-environment theory; other contract/good-faith claims largely dismissed. |
| Is Labor Code § 226 wage-statement claim viable and timely? | Penalties and tolling should render Reinhardt’s § 226 claim timely and cognizable. | No cognizable injury shown; one-year statute and tolling limit apply. | Dismissed for general pleading deficiencies; Reinhardt’s pre-2010 claims barred; leave to amend for later accrual claims. |
| Is the UCL claim viable, and can disgorgement be obtained? | UCL violations based on wage breaches; disgorgement requested as relief. | UCL unlawful predicate must show injury; disgorgement is either restitutionary or improper non-restitutionary relief. | Tenth UCL claim dismissed with leave to amend for specificity; non-restitutionary disgorgement dismissed with prejudice. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cardenas v. McLane FoodService, Inc., 796 F.Supp.2d 1246 (N.D. Cal. 2011) (supports extending Armenia rules to piece-rate contexts)
- Dilts v. Penske Logistics LLC, 819 F.Supp.2d 1109 (S.D. Cal. 2011) (FAAA preemption analysis; evidence on impact on price, route, service)
- Armenta v. Osmose, Inc., 135 Cal.App.4th 314 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005) (hours worked must be compensated; no averaging for minimum wage)
- Martinez v. Combs, 49 Cal.4th 35 (Cal. 2010) (IWC wage orders; hours worked and minimum wage framework)
- Price v. Starbucks Corp., 192 Cal.App.4th 1136 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011) (requires actual injury for § 226(e) penalties; timing considerations)
- Sheppard v. North Orange County Regional Occupational Program, 191 Cal.App.4th 289 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) (hours worked and minimum wage; not all hours billed at base rate)
- Korea Supply Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 29 Cal.4th 1134 (Cal. 2003) (unlawful/unfair/fraudulent prongs of UCL; restitution framework)
- Kwikset Corp. v. Superior Court, 51 Cal.4th 310 (Cal. 2011) (UCL standing and predicate acts; unlawful prong breadth)
- Cel-Tech Communications, Inc. v. Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Co., 20 Cal.4th 163 (Cal. 1999) (three varieties of unfair competition under UCL)
- Oasis West Realty, LLC v. Goldman, 51 Cal.4th 811 (Cal. 2011) (elements of breach of contract claims and remedies)