Shook v. Indian River Transport Co.
2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 174395
E.D. Cal.2014Background
- Plaintiffs are current and former California-based truck drivers for Indian River Transport Co. (IRT) who are paid a flat per‑diem and allege unpaid non‑driving work, denied or uncompensated rest breaks, inaccurate wage statements, untimely final wages, UCL violations, and PAGA claims under California law.
- IRT moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), principally arguing the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act (FAAAA) preempts all claims; it also challenged the legal basis for recovery of unpaid rest breaks for piece‑rate/per‑diem employees.
- Plaintiffs seek statutory relief for missed rest breaks under Cal. Labor Code § 226.7 and Wage Order No. 9, plus unpaid wages and related derivative claims.
- The court accepts complaint allegations for Rule 12(b)(6) purposes and denies judicial notice of a 1947 Industrial Welfare Commission meeting minute proffered by IRT.
- The Ninth Circuit’s decision in Dilts v. Penske (769 F.3d 637) controls preemption analysis: the court follows Dilts and holds the FAAAA does not preempt California meal/rest break and related labor laws as applied to motor carriers.
- The court also relies on Bluford (Cal. Ct. App.) and Armenta precedent to conclude plaintiffs plausibly state a claim for denied or uncompensated rest breaks and thus denies IRT’s motion to dismiss the first claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether FAAAA preempts plaintiffs’ state‑law wage and rest‑break claims | Favors California law application; state wage and hour rules govern and are not related to rates/routes/services | FAAAA preempts because state rules affect prices, routes, services and create a patchwork undermining federal deregulation | Denied preemption; following Dilts, FAAAA does not preempt these California labor laws as generally applied to motor carriers |
| Whether wage‑and‑hour claims (including unpaid non‑driving work) are preempted as "derivative" of rest‑break claims | These are routine employer obligations not related to transportation regulation | Such rules increase costs and require route/operation changes so are preempted | Denied; court reasons general workplace rules do not have the forbidden connection to prices/routes/services under Dilts/Rowe |
| Whether per‑diem/piece‑rate employees must be separately compensated for rest breaks | Plaintiffs rely on Bluford: piece‑rate systems must separately account for rest periods; unpaid/denied breaks yield statutory remedy | IRT contends Wage Order No. 9 does not require separate compensation for piece‑rate workers and urges the court to reject Bluford | Court declines to reject Bluford; finds plaintiffs plausibly allege both denied breaks and uncompensated breaks, so claim survives dismissal |
| Whether judicial notice of 1947 IWC minutes is appropriate to interpret Wage Order No. 9 | N/A (plaintiffs oppose) | IRT asks court to judicially notice minutes as legislative history to rebut Bluford | Denied; court will not take notice of proffered document or its factual assertions/interpretation |
Key Cases Cited
- Dilts v. Penske Logistics, 769 F.3d 637 (9th Cir. 2014) (FAAAA does not preempt California meal and rest break laws as generally applied to motor carriers)
- Bluford v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 216 Cal.App.4th 864 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013) (piece‑rate compensation that does not separately account for rest periods violates wage law)
- Armenta v. Osmose, Inc., 135 Cal.App.4th 314 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005) (every hour worked must be paid at statutory or agreed rate; no credit against minimum wage)
- Rowe v. New Hampshire Motor Transp. Ass’n, 552 U.S. 364 (2008) (limits on preemption under FAAAA; not every state law with tenuous effect is preempted)
- CSX Transp., Inc. v. Easterwood, 507 U.S. 658 (1993) (preemption analysis requires clear and manifest purpose of Congress)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plaintiff must plead factual matter sufficient to state a plausible claim)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility standard for Rule 12(b)(6))
- Pareto v. FDIC, 139 F.3d 696 (9th Cir. 1998) (on dismissal court is generally limited to complaint allegations)
- Reinhardt v. Gemini Motor Transport, 869 F. Supp. 2d 1158 (E.D. Cal. 2012) (every hour worked must be compensated; applied in context of piece‑rate systems)