Rodney Gregory, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Scie, Llc, Dba Epsg Management Services, Lp
317 F.3d 1050
9th Cir.
2003
Check Treatment
Docket

*1 there in the circumstances clarify utility seeking

sented, recognized uncertainty exists

clarification when issue: the counsel

about course, suspect makes an

Of when it will statement equivocal or

ambiguous police practice good

often be clarify whether to

interviewing officers attorney. an actually wants

or not he followed procedure

That was Clarifying in this case. agents

NIS rights help protect

questions gets that he an by ensuring

suspect one, mini- if wants and will

attorney he being of a confession

mize the chance judicial subsequent

suppressed due meaning

second-guessing as to regarding coun- suspect’s statement adopt a rule

sel. But we decline clarifying ques- to ask

requiring officers

tions.

Davis, S.Ct. judgment of the dis-

I affirm would

trict court. individually

Rodney GREGORY, similarly

on behalf of all others

situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, Management LLC, dba EPSG

Services, LP, Defendant-

Appellee.

No. 01-57241. Appeals,

United States Court

Ninth Circuit.

Argued Dec. and Submitted 27, 2003.

Filed Jan.

The district court dismissed action prejudice ground on the that four of preempted causes action are 301; by § it remanded a fifth cause of continuing wages action for under Califor- nia Labor Superi- Code Section 203 Harris, Ruble, Ange- Los Alan Harris & n Gregory appeals. jur- or Court. haveWe Bleeher, les, CA, Los and Maxwell M. appeal isdiction over the under 28 U.S.C. CA, plaintiff-appellant. Angeles, § 1291 and vacate and remand with di- Akin, Strauss, Heinke, Gump, Rex S. Superior rections to remand to the Court. CA, Feld, LLP, Angeles, Los Hauer & defendant-appellee. FACTUAL BACKGROUND employed in the entertain- industry.

ment He is a of Local member the International Alliance Theatri- Stage cal and Motion Picture Employees Technicians Artists and Allied Craft of the (“IATSE”). United States and Canada NELSON and T.G. Before: D.W. of his employ- The terms and conditions NELSON, Judges, Circuit and ment, overtime, SCHWARZER,* Judge. including governed by are Senior District (“CBA”) bargaining agreement a collective SCHWARZER, Judge. Senior District multi-employer and a bar- IATSE this action Rodney Gregory brought unit, Alliance of Motion Picture SCIE, LLC, Manage- dba EPSG against (“Alliance”). and Television Producers Services, (“SCIE”), LP in state court ment represented by a company SCIE is 1194 of the California Labor under Section signatory to and Alliance and is covered Code, “any employee entitles receiv- by the CBA. legal ... overtime com- ing less than employed While applicable ... pensation multiple television and motion worked unpaid ... to recover balance During period picture productions. paid alleged full amount.” He he was not months, six two he worked consecutive performed for SCIE at for overtime work one days productions on two week: premium wage rates violation of Califor- day on one and five on the production Wage nia Labor Code Section 510 working pro- on two other other. While 11 and 12. SCIE removed the Orders ductions, twenty and he worked one-half court, alleging that action to the district day: eight hours on one show hours on one § the claims arise under 301 of the Labor and one-half hours on the oth- twelve (“LMRA”), Management Relations Act violated the alleges er. He 185(a), are, therefore, § within U.S.C. by failing California Labor Code of the federal district him for the hours court.1 * Schwarzer, preemption. He raised claims for William W Senior for federal The Honorable Judge United States District for the Northern Sec- penalties under California Labor Code California, by designation. sitting District of nonpayment of overtime tion 203 for willful restitution, disgorgement and in- due and for alleged law claims also other state junctive & relief under California Business be- which are not relevant to our decision grounds Section 17200. they implicate separate Professions Code cause do not 185(a). Supreme has Court eight hours one U.S.C. worked excess workweek, whose expanded preemption to cases forty hours workday and substantially dependent upon 510.2 resolution “is required analysis of the terms of collective bar [a DISCUSSION *3 agreement].” Allis-Chalmers 202, 220, 105 Lueck, Corp. action v. 471 U.S. S.Ct. this is a state law Because (1985). However, 1904, L.Ed.2d 206 parties, this court’s 85 nondiverse depends alleging a claim jurisdiction preempt § 301 does not subject matter preempted apply un that Gregory’s rights claim is law substantive whether to a § A federal law defense to a and can be re regard der without CBA jurisdiction not confer interpreting Lingle claim does a CBA. state-law solved without Franchise Tax Bd. Chef, on a federal court. See 486 Norge Magic Div. Inc. U.S. of Vacation Trust 399, 413, 1877, v. Constr. Laborers Cal. 100 L.Ed.2d 410 108 S.Ct. 2841, Cal., 1, 14, 103 S.Ct. (1988). Bradshaw, S. 512 In Livadas v. U.S. for (1983). Thus, plaintiff 420 a (1994), 77 L.Ed.2d 2068, 114 129 L.Ed.2d 93 S.Ct. jurisdiction by avoid federal may generally clarification, further provided the Court “ An solely claims. ex pleading state-law stating § 301 cannot be read broad- exists, general proposition ception to non-negotiable rights con- ly preempt however, completely if federal law a employees ferred on individual as matter plaintiffs state-law claim. preempts meaning law.... [W]hen of state case, completely In that federal law dis subject not the of a contract terms is claim, matter plaintiffs state-law no places fact that a collective- dispute, bare instances, carefully pleaded. “In such how in bargaining agreement will be consulted on that any purportedly claim based litigation plainly the course of state-law considered, from its preempted state law is require the claim to be extin claim, inception, a federal and therefore 122-24, 114 guished.” Id. at S.Ct. 2068 Balcorta v. arises under federal law.” omitted). (internal citations and footnotes Corp., 208 Twentieth Finally, in Cramer v. Consolidated (9th Cir.2000). F.3d Inc., Freightways, 255 F.3d 683 Cir. 2001) (en banc), pre we summarized the exception complete preemption The emption analysis: applied primarily 301 of the plaintiffs claim is the touchstone of Id. That Section vests LMRA. preemption] analysis; the need to [the in over for violation “[s]uits federal courts in interpret the CBA must inhere employer a of contracts between an claim. If plaintiffs nature of the organization representing employees labor law, § plainly claim is based on state industry affecting an commerce.” states, regular twice rate of for an 2. California Labor Code Section 510 than part: relevant employee.... requirements of this sec- Eight day’s apply payment tion do not of over- labor constitutes Any eight work excess of hours in compensation employee working work. time to an workday any work in excess of any following: pursuant to of the any one workweek and the first hours in (2) An alternative workweek schedule worked on the seventh adopted pursuant a any work in one workweek shall be com- agreement pursuant to Section 514. pensated at the rate of no less than one regulations are found in 8 California Parallel regular rate of for an one-half times 113(A) Regulations Code of Sections 11110 Any employee. work in excess of 12 hours ¶ 3(A)(2001). and 11120 compensated at less shall be no apply be- ... not to an simply do[es] is not mandated cov- preemption refers to the CBA cause the defendant bargaining agree- ered a valid collective mounting defense. provides premi- ment if the ... um all Id. overtime hours worked ...” LAB. CAL. CODE Here, claim is en based added.) (emphasis argues tirely on state law. There is no reason Section 510 does not interpre or its over the terms CBA in apply Greg- overtime is calculated because the CBA under tation. While CBA, terms of the accordance with the ory paid provides premium works and is concerning the this case involves no issue assuming rates for overtime. Even calculation. The issue here is method of provides premium wage rates for *4 are calculated but not how overtime rates overtime, question the here is the same as com the result of the calculation whether by that raised Section 510: whether when law, i.e., whether plies with California paid overtime it paid is under the CBA is for paid premium wage is rates worked, required for all overtime hours as in “[a]ny work excess of hours by question California law. This is a of workday any and work in excess of 40 law, CBA, interpretation of state not of the (emphasis week” any hours one work that we leave to the state court. SCIE added), law. required by California not that Gregory’s does contend claim § 510. The issue arises Cal. Lab.Code on all in a aggregating based hours worked performed for the work because workday or a workweek arises under the productions exceeded SCIE on different CBA, CBA. Nor has SCIE shown the aggregate eight the hours one work which is silent about whether hours He forty and hours one work week. productions worked on different are or are paid premium wage rates because was not aggregated calculating not to be when together lump SCIE does not different worked, any bearing overtime hours has to calculate overtime hours. productions Here, this all that on issue.3 was needed parties may re dispute between “any Gregory’s interpretation of the words to determine claim were the quire statute, work” in the but its resolution earning reports for each worked.4 See to, much require does not reference less Balcorta v. Twentieth of, interpretation the CBA. Cir.2000) Corp., 208 F.3d (stating of timeliness of determination position, In support its SCIE invokes wage payments wage California provides: which “[SJection under that, may given Cali- It the nature of work in 3. Our decision in Firestone Southern Co., (9th Cir.2000) industry, 219 F.3d 1063 compliance Gas with the entertainment fornia There, apposite. whether is not the issue was Sections 510 and 514 will confront SCIE by compensation employees received complexities in the administration of the complex under a formula of the CBA consti- argues. provisions, as SCIE CBA's overtime premium required tuted rates however, line, is bottom is that SCIE However, California law. Id. at 1066-67. law, gives employees a bound could not be resolved without inter- issue compensation right to overtime "for all over- Here, parties' pretation of the CBA. Id. Overtime hours are de- time hours worked.” dispute premium rates is not over how prac- Whether SCIE's fined in Section 510. CBA, are calculated under the but whether lumping productions different tice of not paid premium pay all the time is for complies with Cali- determine hours worked premium for which he is entitled to question law a for the state court. fornia is require California law. This the CBA. (1) agreement must: require not refer- does statute payment wages, CBA.).5 provide[ for “expressly ] ence employ- work, working conditions of depends preemp- Federal (2) ees”; “provide[ ] it and must his claim claim. Because Gregory’s tion of for all overtime hours wage rates worked law, § 301 on state based “plainly for those regular hourly and a rate simply because not mandated emption is percent of not less than 30 employees in mount- refers to the defendant wage.”2 minimum than the state more Cramer, 255 F.3d at 691. ing a defense.” jurisdiction has not face, federal hold that its the collective We On Accordingly, we vacate established. SCIE and been directions and remand with judgment re- appears union to meet Section 514’s of Los Superior remand to Court expressly provides It quirements. juris- we lack County. Because Angeles work, condi- working “wages, diction, Gregory’s other not reach we do addition, provides wage it tions.” In claims. than 30% over Cali- significantly greater wage;3 correspond- fornia’s minimum and REMANDED.

VACATED premium wage rates for over- ingly high *5 NELSON, Thus, face, Judge, Circuit the collective T.G. time on its work. dissenting: agreement governing bargaining him the except to employment seems from Determining respectfully I dissent. requirements of Section 510. applies Gregory to law whether California the collective bar- interpreting requires ease is that interesting twist this triggers agreement, which the interpretation novel SCIE’s rather Thus, I would the district emption. affirm comport re- agreement does not with the court. applied 514. As quirements of Section defendant, agreement requires the the 510, the Labor Code Section California em- compensation only when an overtime brings Gregory the section under which -production for more ployee works on one expressly ap- question, claims forty eight than hours in a or to a employees “working pursuant ply to if an pay a will not overtime week. SCIE bargaining agreement pursuant collective 1 the same number of works Section sets forth to 514.” applied by productions. As on different precise characteristics of collective then, bargaining the collective place employ- agreements that bargaining 514’s agreement does not meet Section of Section 510. The ees outside the reach 2068). to argue passing 114 S.Ct. SCIE cites appears that the U.S. to 5. language. gave up no such employees covered their statutory right premium wage rates for all to 1. Cal. 510. Lab.Code exchange hours worked in overtime argument flies in the benefits. The CBA's § 514. 2. Cal. Lab.Code 1194(a), provides a of Section face legal action for overtime “not cause of mini- assert California’s Defendants withstanding any agreement work for a to during period was mum relevant 1194(a). wage." hour, Cal. any- Lab.Code though they lesser per do not cite $6.75 must 'clear and Assuming "the CBA include thing support Moreover asser- to this. their correct, language waiving covered plus unmistakable' tion is minimum 30% hourly right even to employee's $8.78. 'for court be The lowest listed would rate " bargaining agreement is given it could be effect.' in the collective consider whether Livadas, Cramer, $25.05. (quoting 255 F.3d at 692 him to so does not tread on provid- do California’s requirement in excess of “authority all hours worked to minimum ed for enact labor stan- forty in a week.4 in a or If an dards.” arbitrator deems SCIE’s correct, the collective bar- willing accept SCIE’s majority is gaining agreement would indeed fail to bargaining collective interpretation of the satisfy requirements of Section I proceed and to from there. because, majority strong would have a with the disagree agreement, it is collective clear-cut state law claim under Section a “neutral arbitrator as- province designated panel] of neutral signed [a from law, Gregory pur- As a matter of must to offer the definitive inter- arbitrators” collectively bargained sue his remedies pretation the collective determining first: whether the collective single party not a agreement, bargaining agreement require- meets the interpretation of the agreement.5 SCIE’s inquiry ments of Section is an that is very bargaining agreement may collective “inextricably intertwined with consider- case, If incorrect. that is the well be contract.”8 ation the terms the labor likely to bargaining agreement Thus, preempts question.9 the LMRA requirements, leaving satisfy Section 514’s I therefore dissent. solely collectively bar- remedy. possi- this distinct gained Given that, I as a matter of labor

bility, believe law, pursue his

policy and of must rights first.

collectively bargained *6 Manage- passed the Labor

Congress “promot[e]

ment Relations Act order to: disputes

the arbitration of labor contract the uniform securfe]

[and] Requiring contracts.”6 labor interpretation of the

to seek a definitive agreement comports bargaining

collective Moreover, requiring policy goal.

with this Lueck, 1108; Corp. v. 7. Id. at Allis-Chalmers Lab.Code 514. 4. See Cal. 1904, 202, 211-12, 105 S.Ct. bargaining agreement fails to 5. The collective (1985). L.Ed.2d 206 specify how work time should be calculated in However, clearly trigger it order to overtime. Co., F.3d 8. Firestone v. S. Cal. Gas contemplates payment for overtime work. It Cir.2000) (internal (9th quotation marks descriptions of various col- includes detailed omitted) (holding and citation (from orfully-named plain kinds of overtime interpreting the could not be resolved without Thus, hours”). “golden ''overtime” to in or- agreement where dis- der to determine when overtime must pute plaintiffs on whether were receiv- turned beyond plain lan- paid, must look ing “premium rate” for overtime things guage agreement to such exempted from Section 510’s were therefore industry practice, course of whole, requirements). among parties, as a words, interpret the etc. In other one must agreement. 9. Id. 1065-66. v. Twentieth Balcorta Cir.2000). Corp., 208 F.3d 1108-09