Lexis Nexis - Case Brief

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

Law School Case Brief

Carrillo v. Schneider Logistics Trans-Loading & Distribution, Inc. - No. 2:11-cv-8557-CAS(DTBx), 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5379 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 14, 2014)

Rule:

On a motion for summary judgment, if the moving party meets its initial burden, the opposing party must then set out specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial in order to defeat the motion. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(e). The nonmoving party must not simply rely on the pleadings and must do more than make conclusory allegations in an affidavit. Summary judgment must be granted for the moving party if the nonmoving party 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. 

Facts:

This case pertains to a Third Amended Complaint (TAC). The TAC is a class, collective, and representative action complaint. It asserts claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the California Labor Code, the Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), and the common law for unpaid wages, failure to keep proper employment records, and related violations. Plaintiffs sought to represent two proposed classes. On August 30, 2013, defendant employer SLTD filed a motion for partial summary judgment, challenging its liability as an alleged joint employer under the FLSA and California law. Plaintiffs filed an opposition on September 30, 2013. SLTD filed a reply on October 15, 2013. Dkt. #458. The court held a hearing on November 4, 2013, and thereafter took this matter under submission.

Issue:

Should defendant’s motion for summary judgment be granted?

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

The employees presented sufficient evidence under the Bonnette factors to demonstrate a triable issue of fact as to defendant's joint employer status under the FLSA where there was evidence of evidence of defendant's authority to remove employees from the Mira Loma warehouses, a material issue of disputed fact existed as to whether defendant's supervisors controlled work schedules and employment conditions, and a factual dispute existed as to whether defendant maintained the employees' employment records. The evidence produced by the employees pertaining to the first three Bonnette factors persuaded the court that a genuine factual dispute existed as to whether defendant directly or indirectly exercised control over the wages, hours, or working conditions of the employees at the Mira Loma warehouses.

Access the full text case Not a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.
Be Sure You're Prepared for Class