Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-02092/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-02092-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 29:201 Fair Labor Standards Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Teresa Waddell, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

City of Phoenix, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 11-02092-PHX-FJM

ORDER

The court has before it defendant's motion for summary judgment (doc. 23),

defendant's statement of facts in support ("DSOF") (doc. 24), plaintiff's response and crossmotion for summary judgment (doc. 27), plaintiff's statement of facts ("PSOF") (doc. 28),

defendant's reply and response to plaintiff's cross-motion (doc. 31), defendant's controverting

statement of facts ("DSOF2") (doc. 32), and plaintiff's reply (doc. 33).

I

On a motion for summary judgment we accept undisputed facts as true and review

disputed facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Anthoine v. N. Cent.

Cntys. Consortium, 605 F.3d 740, 745 (9th Cir. 2010). We may consider any fact asserted

by one party that is not addressed by the opposing party as undisputed for the purposes of

the motion. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)(2). Similarly, any disputed fact that a party does not

support with admissible evidence isinsufficient to defeatsummary judgment. Taylor v. List,

880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). Here, although plaintiff filed a statement of facts in

Case 2:11-cv-02092-FJM Document 40 Filed 03/14/13 Page 1 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

support of her response and cross-motion for summary judgment, she did not controvert

defendant's statement of facts, as required by LRCiv 56.1(b). Accordingly, we accept

defendant's statement of facts as true. 

Plaintiff began working for the City of Phoenix Police Department Mounted Patrol

Unit (“MPU”) in 1997. The MPU was part of the Downtown Operations Unit (“DOU”), a

specialized unit within the Homeland Defense Bureau which was responsible for delivering

police service on horseback to the downtown area. Plaintiff became the primary rider and

trainer of a horse named Magic. DOU guidelines required MPU officers to feed and groom

their assigned horses before transporting them to the patrol destination where they would

provide police services and functions. Plaintiff’s work week consisted of four ten hour shifts,

during which she was allotted time to feed, groom, or otherwise care for Magic. During

plaintiff's days off and during the hours she was not working, police assistants would care

for and feed Magic, unless there was an emergency. Between 1998 and 2008, plaintiff only

submitted four overtime slips in connection with grooming and feeding Magic on days or

times that she was not regularly scheduled to work.

In November 2008, when it was announced that Magic was to be retired as a Phoenix

Police Department patrol horse, plaintiff advised that she wanted to adopt him. Although the

adoption of Magic was not officially approved until June 2010, plaintiff voluntarily took

possession of Magic in December 2008. Thereafter, Magic stopped performing any police

related function or activity. At no time between December 2008, when plaintiff took

possession of Magic, and June 2010, when his adoption was approved by the City Council,

did plaintiff ask that the City of Phoenix (the "City") take him back, nor did she request

compensation or overtime pay for his care and grooming. 

In October 2011, plaintiff filed a complaint alleging that under the Fair Labor

Standards Act("FLSA") she is entitled to overtime pay because between November 1997 and

June 2010 she was required to groom and care for Magic at times outside of her assigned

forty hour work week. Complaint at ¶ 43. Defendant moves for summary judgment, arguing

that plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that the activity for which she requests overtime is

Case 2:11-cv-02092-FJM Document 40 Filed 03/14/13 Page 2 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 -

compensable under the FLSA. Defendant contends that plaintiff has already been

compensated for any work she performed outside of her forty hour work week between

November 1997 and October 2008. Defendant further argues that plaintiff is not entitled to

overtime compensation for the care and maintenance of Magic after November 2008, when

he wasretired. Plaintiff cross-moves for summary judgment arguing that the City has a duty

to provide overtime compensation to plaintiff because the activity for which she requests

overtime is compensable under the FLSA, and the City knew or should have known that

plaintiff was working overtime.

II

Summary judgment is appropriate if the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable

to the nonmoving party, shows "that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that

the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). Summary

judgment is also appropriate 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." Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S. Ct.

2548, 2552 (1986).

The FLSA, requires an employer to provide overtime pay to employees working more

than forty hours in a work week. 29 U.S.C. § 207(a)(1). An activity constitutes "work," and

is compensable under the FLSA if it involves "physical or mental exertion (whether

burdensome or not) controlled or required by the employer and pursued necessarily and

primarily for the benefit of the employer and his business." IBP, Inc. v. Alvarez, 546 U.S.

21, 25, 126 S. Ct. 514, 519 (2005). An employee is entitled to be compensated for the

"[p]eriods of time between the commencement of the employee's first principal activity and

the completion of his last principal activity on any workday." 29 CFR § 790.6(a). The term

"workday" is generally defined as "the period between the commencement and completion

on the same workday of an employee’s principal activity or activities." 29 CFR § 790.6(b).

A given activity constitutes a "principal activity," if it is "an integral and indispensable part

of the principal activities for which covered workmen are employed." Steiner v. Mitchell,

Case 2:11-cv-02092-FJM Document 40 Filed 03/14/13 Page 3 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 4 -

350 U.S. 247, 256, 76 S. Ct. 330, 335 (1956). "To be integral and dispensable an activity

must be necessary to the principal work performed and done for the benefit of the employer."

Alvarez v. IBP, Inc., 339 F.3d 894, 902-903 (9th Cir. 2003).

Here, it is undisputed that between 1997 and October 2008, feeding and grooming

Magic were part of plaintiff's principal activities. It is also undisputed that plaintiff’s

workday consisted of a ten hour shift. Defendant argues that plaintiff is not entitled to

overtime pay because she was given time to groom, feed, care for, and maintain Magic within

her regularly scheduled workday. Plaintiff does not dispute that she was given time to groom

and feed Magic, but she argues that often the allotted time was insufficient. During her

deposition, however, plaintiff admitted that her shift began before any of the feeding and

grooming, and that if there was not a holdover, she left the downtown area approximately one

hour prior to the end of her shift to allow her time to transport and feed her assigned horse.

DSOF, ex. 1 at pp. 25-26. Plaintiff also conceded that on her days off and during the hours

she was not working, police assistants would care for and feed Magic, unless there was an

emergency. Id. at p. 27. Moreover, plaintiff acknowledged that to the extent she was held

over or worked on her days off, and that time was in excess of her forty hour work week, she

submitted overtime slips and was paid overtime for that work. Id. at p. 27-29. Plaintiff has

not provided any evidence showing that she performed work outside of her forty hour work

week for which she has not been paid overtime. Accordingly, plaintiff cannot defeat

defendant's motion for summary judgment on the issue that she has been compensated for

overtime in connection with maintenance and care of Magic between November 1997 and

October 2008. Taylor, 880 F.2d at 1045 (“A summary judgment motion cannot be defeated

by relying solely on conclusory allegations unsupported by factual data.”). We conclude that

plaintiff is not entitled to overtime pay pursuant to the FLSA during the period between 1997

and October 2008, beyond that which she was already paid.

It is also undisputed that Magic was "retired" and no longer an active police horse as

of November 2008. Defendant argues that because Magic was no longer an active police

horse after November 2008, plaintiff is not entitled to overtime compensation for the care and

Case 2:11-cv-02092-FJM Document 40 Filed 03/14/13 Page 4 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

Because we conclude the activities are not compensable under the FLSA, we do not

reach the issue of whether the City had the requisite knowledge to establish a duty to pay

overtime to plaintiff under the FLSA.

- 5 -

maintenance of Magic after that date. Plaintiff argues that her compensable activities

continued until 2009. Plaintiff's Reply at 7. During plaintiff's deposition, however, she

conceded that after she took possession of Magic in November 2008, she no longer

performed police functions on him. DSOF, ex. 1 at 33-34. Plaintiff further acknowledged

that after she took possession of Magic, caring for him did not constitute police services. Id.

Because the time plaintiff spent caring for Magic after she took possession of him was not

an activity controlled or required by the City of Phoenix Police Department and pursued

necessarily and primarily for the benefit of the Police Department, it was not “work” as

defined in the FLSA. Accordingly, plaintiff is not entitled to overtime compensation for time

plaintiff spent caring for Magic after November 2008.

Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the activities for which plaintiff seeks

overtime are not compensable under the FLSA.1

 Therefore, IT IS ORDERED GRANTING

defendant's motion for summary judgment (doc. 23) and DENYING plaintiff's cross-motion

for summary judgment (doc. 27). The clerk shall enter final judgment in favor of defendant

and against plaintiff.

DATED this 13th day of March, 2013.

Case 2:11-cv-02092-FJM Document 40 Filed 03/14/13 Page 5 of 5