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

Wallace v. City of San Jose

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

January 10, 20201, Submitted, San Francisco, California; January 15, 2020, Filed

No. 18-16083


 [*478]  MEMORANDUM3

We write primarily for the parties who are familiar with the facts. Darren Wallace, Keith Hart, and Mark Leeds ("Appellants") are firefighters employed by the City of San Jose ("the City"). They sued the City for alleged wage violations under the [**2]  Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. §§ 203, et seq. They collectively allege that the City miscalculated its FLSA overtime liability and in turn, underpaid them during six work periods. The district court granted summary judgment for the City. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.

] "We review a grant of summary judgment . . . de novo, applying the same standard of review as the district court under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56." Flores v. City of San Gabriel, 824 F.3d 890, 897 (9th Cir. 2016). ] Summary judgment is appropriate if the moving party "shows there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and [it] is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). While the moving party has the  [*479]  initial burden of production on summary judgment, see Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S. Ct. 2548, 91 L. Ed. 2d 265 (1986), the non-moving party "must identify with reasonable particularity the evidence that precludes summary judgment." Keenan v. Allan, 91 F.3d 1275, 1279 (9th Cir. 1996).

] "[T]he plain language of Rule 56(c) mandates the entry of summary judgment . . . against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial." Parth v. Pomona Valley Hosp. Med. Ctr., 630 F.3d 794, 798-99 (9th Cir. 2010) (alteration and ellipses in original) (quoting Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322). ] "In a suit brought under the FLSA, the employee has the burden of proving that the employee was not properly compensated for work [**3]  performed." Imada v. City of Hercules, 138 F.3d 1294, 1296 (9th Cir. 1998).

1. The City's Pay Structure

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.

799 Fed. Appx. 477 *; 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 1548 **; 2020 WL 238542

DARREN WALLACE, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CITY OF SAN JOSE, Defendant-Appellee.


Prior History:  [**1] Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. D.C. No. 5:16-cv-04914-HRL. Howard R. Lloyd, Magistrate Judge, Presiding.

Wallace v. City of San Jose, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 81048 (N.D. Cal., May 14, 2018)

Disposition: AFFIRMED.


overtime, calculations, firefighters, summary judgment, work period, regular rate, overtime pay, district court

Civil Procedure, Appeals, Standards of Review, De Novo Review, Judgments, Summary Judgment, Entitlement as Matter of Law, Summary Judgment Review, Standards of Review, Evidence, Burdens of Proof, Burden Shifting, Movant Persuasion & Proof, Nonmovant Persuasion & Proof, Opposing Materials, Business & Corporate Compliance, Wage & Hour Laws, Scope & Definitions, Overtime & Work Periods, Allocation, Labor & Employment Law, Governmental Employees, Regular Rate