outset to break down of them hone in so that judgment because there are a number of issues in this case and i thought that roadmap might be helpful way to emphasize particular issues and i'd like to focus on forty one million dollars out of the nearly eighty million dollars judgment is attributable to the minimum wage compliance claim that's one of the issues i'd like to focus on given the magnitude of the claim and also the significance of the california supreme court's decision you know not recently  issues for the airlines and i'd like to focus on that issue as well because those claims are preempted by federal law in addition to that about twelve million dollars are attributable to the wage statement claims the california supreme court in ward those claims and then around eleven and a half one million dollars in other derivative claims and about six million dollars in trainees fees or there's a dormant commerce clause overlay on top of all of this which i'm happy to discuss and hope that we have seen time for but at the same time i controls here as well so perhaps let me start with that judge tiger on the minimum wage claims said that california law prohibited wage averaging the california supreme court in oman and said the opposite averaging is  permissible is boring the difference comes down to a matter of contract if the employee is promised certain pay for a certain period of time that the employees deemed to be paid for all hours work within that period and there's no problem with translating that compensation into an hourly rate across the period that is true under oman even if there are on duty periods that the employers pay formula doesn't directly compensate borrowing by contrast is what occurs when the employer remains on contract year there are three key sites in the record that establish that the wave policy here the way payment plan was report and release times are and those pages nicoya are that employees are expected to show up a certain amount in advance of a flight and to stay for a certain period of time after a flight so that is what they are being and the significance of that is that it shows that based on this approach based on this formula the class members earned more than the california minimum wage ninety nine ninety eight percent of the time the only way th e district court got to a forty million dollar forty one million dollar windfall here was based on a technicality and the technicality is that the way the formula is set up the credits are earned for certain periods of time but not for others and the the hourly rate for those periods of time is at a higher hourly rate than it otherwise would be in order to account for that kind of a system but the district court in this case said that the same higher hourly rate and to apply to the other and get you on with not all that lee which cases are dealing with which particular provisions but i think with respect to the other point in the case beyond a minimum wage or doesn't have any question on the minimum wage clients point with respect to two claim is jubal st does the employee work the majority of the time in california and if no just for a wage state and claim does the employee present for working california and perform some they spend their time and where they presented themselves for work and they didn't all present themselves for work in california we know that because the name point of mr bernstein usually presented a result or at j f k rather than the airport in new york rather class without asking these questions that were now requires and then nd of all these are individual lies questions that if they are to be asked can't be asked on class way basis because you have to go white and my flight ended and time period my time period  substance of why is going to govern the entire working relationship in this kind of a situation where you're talking about work that is inherently intrastate in nature and where you have flight attendants were performing only small amounts of contract law that doesn't mean that the entire body of california wages hour is what's been selected to apply that well if you know again i'm i'm just trying to understand the sense the employer grabs of the contract visioning you know way that nobody ever understood at the time and really nobody had understood before these sorts of lawsuits started to be final that california law that one state law would apply the work of interstate fight against it was that kind of a commitment being made  you would expect to have some evidence of that both in the contract itself and in the surrounding circumstances that just entirely lacking in your position that probably any of your employees here even read the contract evidence in the record of that but i don't think we should assume that people never read their contracts as this is an employment contract this is not you know much of the fine print on the back of an airline ticket or something this is a national employment contract if you should assume that people pay some attention  invoking california contract law presumes that if the employer promises the pay you x it instead pays you something else the contract is going to be interpreted under california law principles for that purpose is not applying the entire body of that california law was not going to fly across the board judgment i'm not assuming that the employees are lawyers but i am assuming in this case that before the airline undertook such a responsibility or set made such a change in employment someone would have understood something other than california law with the judgment at this point i just don't know that the record reflects that kind of clear california choice federal law authorizes airlines to assign flight attendants for duty periods of up to fourteen hours to be filed to be followed by a nine hour break california law a conflict with that by requiring the brakes be given every forty five hours so fetzer california law is specifically requiring president contradicting federal law in that in addition to that providing these sorts of short breaks in the middle of a duty period would interfere with the safety responsibilities that flight attendants are required performance or federal law federal law requires them to be available at any time during their duty at any time during their duty period in order to perform their safety responsibilities the california water requires that when they are on their short breaks they not be subjected to any requirements by the employer if they have confidence reaction as a result of that nd of all there's also a fuel preemption because the f a a regulations california law because the federal law specifically authorizes the period of up to fourteen hours california law prohibits that so it requires breaks every four to five hours of california was specifically prohibiting what federal law authorizes it's also interfering with the safety resprayed laws were not preempted under the airline deregulation act because of this court's holding in dilts which was a case about how the same state laws apply to motor carriers but that piece is not controlling here and it's important  history if there are the district court contemplated that sort of the compliance of california's laws could be achieved using the same sorts of strategies that this court said would work for voter carriers in dil so you could hire additional flight attendants  you could have delays in between stops but that doesn't work because of for the airline industry because of the very tightly choreographed important needed nature of air travel there's limited runway space there's environmental hazards flights take at very specific times otherwise there are ripple effects snowball effect strove the country of other delays and so nearly hiring additional sorry so the laying flights of course is going to have a direct effect on services the same kind of significant direct effect that that is forbidden by the airline deregulation and hiring flight attendants additional play attendance also doesn't solve this problem because hiring additional flight attendants if you have staggered flights you would be leaving flight attendants  cities that are home base you would be having an issue where airlines would have to send a new flight to pick them up and take them home and that's forcing your to have additional services services that they might not the competitive market forces might not otherwise require these are exactly the sorts of situations that congress want to prevent state laws for interfering in competitive market forces you know being the driving factor behind the rest behind sorry airline prices routes and services led teams can spend on duty there is a massive amount or a minimum of time that flight attendants have to spend between getting furious entirely off duty there are yes around of there are regulations it broadly in the air the hours of service area on the law that we already have our ballot in a position to determine what the california supreme court would likely do with your course the amendment do not send anything back for the in the language that that is our position your honor law there is now fast and the california law applied to all the blame here however for various yes that we would like if you didn't look at the contract which i submit i appreciate your the board's attention to the contract does in fact this is a california corporation that shows to base itself in california because it got millions of dollars to do it until two thousand and fourteen and had its entire workforce all flight attendants based in how after to two thousand and fourteen th had no more than two ording to virgin's own expert no more than twenty planned intentions that were starting their flights in and out of j f k which was the only base after teen outside of your i was out of california those individuals are excluded from the class in any event so what is the case here is a california employer and california based employees and the only people who are seeking for seeking time x recover any time work out of state  it's a central district of california case and that case looks at the fact that although that individual was working abroad california law applied because that is where the determinations were made and that i would submit that that apply to all the clique claims and so verging on virgin's council's position that this would be a sweeping change in the law that's simply not the case because as we know federal wage law sets a floor not any ceiling for wage outset is to pay the flight attendant hourly rate played in times understood that they were being paid an hourly rate there are declarations in the record that that discuss that those are uncontested the wage statements identify an hourly rate but wor identify hours and the crew pay manual states that crew members are paid for quote credit hours and that crew members are not paid for time on the ground or will need to be paid for what's called block time which is as essential the flight exact same as the judge tiger did in this case and found that in contrast the delta delta had a formula where it added up all the hours in the g p and then divided them by the flight rate and in that way if the duty period ranks and it would be ensured the flight attendants would continue to get paid we don't have that situation here of late attendance for an additional five hours before after a flayed they could be a ground moving at the gate for five hours there is nothing in any formula of action to come to this or any of that time so we would submit under these very clear and direct holding of only the pay structure that virgin's has here whether you look at it individuals are based in california again working for a california employer and the vast majority of time that's being sought to be recovered at the time it was worked on the ground and how so while i think the core more direct support should look at each very quickly they answer is no and we said no you would not need to to reverse that order because as the as these claims are all fully integrated as  is in under your understanding is there any problem that we have that we have the you that issue in terms of applying california law to someone who may be flying from california to new york relationship is governed by the work rules those are the the excerpts of record cites that i was giving earlier with there's a minimum wage claims and the work rules don't have any sort of a choice of walker vision liked and so there is a choice of wa provision that  there's an obvious difference between the trucking industry of your own industry truck drivers can get a rest break on the side of the road that only increases costs and only interrupts schedules in a modest way it would be a much bigger and much bigger impact on the airline industry for flight attendants to have to take white's mid tactic breaks mid flight or even on the ground causing flight delays and so it is not on point here in this industry with respect toward and to go back to judge smith's for earlier question the california supreme court in wardak footnote eight makes clear that the leading california cases i water in solomon just don't address a situation like this where you have transportation workers who don't principally work in any one state so ward itself is the leading  where the miners are performing full days or weeks of work at a time in california that simply is not what we have what we have here now it's true that ward for twenty six purposes also created an exception just for that statue for  the flight attendant is based but according word reve using that term in a very particular sense it find based to mean that california serves as a physical location where the worker presents for what and here ms bernstein herself did not typically present for work in california she did so in new york and we don't know because the plaintiff haven't argued and the district court didn't ask where the other class members presented for one and so whether we're talking about fertility sex purposes that up in the district court's judgment and for purposes of the other california law provisions if we're talking about choice of want wards touchstone is where was the work principally performs not any of the other factors that the district court relied on with respect to the hate formula that the formula uses an hourly rate but that rate is compensating for the entire in theory that again is the import of the earlier citations that if that formula is compensating for the entire bit very lastly with respect to the attorney's fees the standard practice as dismissed questions versus suggesting is to vacate whenever any part of the judgment is set aside