Not a Lexis+ subscriber? Try it out for free.

Experience a New Era in Legal Research with Free Access to Lexis+

Dilts v. Penske Logistics, LLC

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

March 3, 2014, Argued and Submitted, Pasadena, California; September 8, 2014, Amended; July 9, 2014, Filed

No. 12-55705

Opinion

 [*640]  AMENDED OPINION

OPINION

GRABER, Circuit Judge:

Plaintiffs, a certified class of drivers employed by Defendants Penske Logistics, LLC, and Penske Truck Leasing Co., L.P., appeal from a judgment dismissing their claims under California's meal and rest break laws. The district court held on summary judgment that the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994 ("FAAAA") preempts those state laws as applied to motor carriers. Reviewing de novo the interpretation and construction of the FAAAA and the question of federal preemption, Tillison v. Gregoire, 424 F.3d 1093, 1098 (9th Cir. 2005), we hold that the state laws at issue are not "related to" prices, routes, or services, and therefore are not preempted by the FAAAA. Accordingly, we reverse.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiffs Mickey Lee Dilts, Ray Rios, and [**4]  Donny Dushaj brought this class action against Defendants, which are motor carriers, alleging that Defendants routinely violate California's meal and rest break laws, Cal. Lab. Code §§ 226.7, 512; Cal. Code Regs. tit. 8, § 11090. Plaintiffs represent a certified class of 349 delivery drivers and installers, all of whom are assigned to the Penske Whirlpool account. Plaintiffs work exclusively on routes within the state of California, typically work more than 10 hours a day, and frequently work in pairs, with one driver and one deliverer/installer in each truck.

] California law generally requires a 30-minute meal break for every five hours worked, Cal. Lab. Code § 512, and a paid 10-minute rest break for every four hours worked, Cal. Code Regs. tit. 8, § 11090. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants automatically program 30-minute meal breaks into employees' shifts while failing to ensure that employees actually take those breaks and that Defendants create a working environment that discourages employees from taking their meal and rest breaks.

 [*641]  Plaintiffs initially filed this action in state court. Defendants removed the case to federal district court under the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(d)(2), 1441(b), 1453. Following removal, Defendants moved for summary judgment, claiming a preemption defense. Defendants argued [**5]  that the state meal and rest break laws as applied to motor carriers are preempted under the FAAAA, which provides that "States may not enact or enforce a law . . . related to a price, route, or service of any motor carrier . . . with respect to the transportation of property." 49 U.S.C. § 14501(c)(1). Concluding that California's meal and rest break laws impose "fairly rigid" timing requirements, dictating "exactly when" and "for exactly how long" drivers must take breaks, and restricting the routes that a motor carrier may select, the district court held that California's meal and rest break laws meet the FAAAA preemption standard and granted summary judgment for Defendants. Dilts v. Penske Logistics LLC, 819 F. Supp. 2d 1109, 1119-20 (S.D. Cal. 2011).3 Plaintiffs timely appeal.

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

769 F.3d 637 *; 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 17476 **; 23 Wage & Hour Cas. 2d (BNA) 517

MICKEY LEE DILTS; RAY RIOS; and DONNY DUSHAJ, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. PENSKE LOGISTICS, LLC; and PENSKE TRUCK LEASING CO., L.P., a Delaware corporation, Defendants-Appellees, and DOES 1-125, inclusive, Defendants.

Subsequent History: Settled by Dilts v. Penske Logistics LLC, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 180762 (S.D. Cal., Feb. 27, 2015)

US Supreme Court certiorari denied by Penske Logistics, LLC v. Dilts, 135 S. Ct. 2049, 191 L. Ed. 2d 956, 2015 U.S. LEXIS 2990 (U.S., May 4, 2015)

Motion denied by Dilts v. Penske Logistics, LLC, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 119435 (S.D. Cal., Mar. 9, 2016)

Costs and fees proceeding at, Motion granted by, in part, Motion denied by, in part, Request denied by Dilts v. Penske Logistics, LLC, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 186269 (S.D. Cal., Mar. 11, 2016)

On remand at, Partial summary judgment denied by Dilts v. Penske Logistics, LLC, 188 F. Supp. 3d 1016, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 70286 (S.D. Cal., May 17, 2016)

Motion granted by, in part, Motion denied by, in part, Class certification denied by, in part Dilts v. Penske Logistics, LLC, 315 F.R.D. 591, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 102876 (S.D. Cal., July 20, 2016)

Settled by, Costs and fees proceeding at, Motion granted by, in part Dilts v. Penske Logistics, LLC, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93289 (S.D. Cal., June 16, 2017)

Prior History: Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. D.C. No. 3:08-cv-00318-CAB-BLM. Cathy Ann Bencivengo [**1] , District Judge, Presiding.

Dilts v. Penske Logistics, LLC, 757 F.3d 1078, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 12933 (9th Cir. Cal., July 9, 2014)Dilts v. Penske Logistics LLC, 819 F. Supp. 2d 1109, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 122421 (S.D. Cal., Oct. 19, 2011)

Disposition: REVERSED and REMANDED.

CORE TERMS

routes, meal, preemption, preempted, prices, motor carrier, carriers, rest break, Airline, state law, transportation, Deregulation, drivers, regulations, quotation, marks, breaks, trucking, cases, rates, customer, state regulation, enact, bind, transportation of property, summary judgment, indirectly, scheduling, off-duty, forces

Labor & Employment Law, Wage & Hour Laws, Scope & Definitions, Regular Rate, Constitutional Law, Supremacy Clause, Federal Preemption, Governments, Legislation, Interpretation, Business & Corporate Compliance, Transportation Law, Carrier Duties & Liabilities, State & Local Regulation

Labor & Employment Law, Wage & Hour Laws, Scope & Definitions, Regular Rate, Constitutional Law, Supremacy Clause, Federal Preemption, Governments, Legislation, Interpretation, Business & Corporate Compliance, Transportation Law, Carrier Duties & Liabilities, State & Local Regulation