Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02281/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02281-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 720
Nature of Suit: Labor Management Relations Act
Cause of Action: 29:185 Labor/Mgt. Relations (Contracts)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RYDER INTEGRATED LOGISTIC,

Plaintiff,

 v.

DONNA M. DELL,

Defendant. /

No. C 05-02281 WHA

ORDER (1) DENYING 

MOTION TO INTERVENE,

(2) VACATING HEARING AND

(3) RESCHEDULING CASE

MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

INTRODUCTION

In this labor-dispute action, Patrick McLeskey, David Barber, Charles Thompson and

Michael Sullivan (“the proposed intervenors”) now move to intervene pursuant to FRCP 24. 

Because this order finds that the interests of the proposed intervenors are adequately

represented by an existing party, at least at this stage of litigation, this motion is DENIED.

STATEMENT

From August 16, 1999, to August 16, 2003, plaintiff had a contract to service a Ralph’s

Grocery facility in Stockton, California (Compl. ¶ 9). The proposed intervenors were employed

by plaintiff as drivers assigned to perform work on this contract. The terms and conditions of

their employment were set forth in a collective-bargaining agreement (“CBA”) negotiated

between plaintiff and General Teamsters Local Union No. 439 (id. ¶ 10). Under this CBA,

drivers were compensated “based on miles driven, delivery stops made, pallets handled, trailers

dropped and hooked, and time they were delayed from delivering product” in lieu of an hourly

wage; drivers typically worked in excess of 40 hours per week (id. ¶ 11).

Case 3:05-cv-02281-WHA Document 24 Filed 09/02/05 Page 1 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Because the contract with Ralph’s Grocery was not renewed, plaintiff terminated the

employment of all bargaining-unit drivers on August 16, 2003 (id. ¶ 12). The terms of the CBA

provided that “[v]acation pay shall be calculated at one fifty-second (1/52nd) of the employee’s

annual earnings for each week of vacation” (ibid.). Accordingly, on August 16, 2003, plaintiff

paid all bargaining-unit drivers, including the proposed intervenors, for their earned, unused

vacation time “based on rates derived from dividing average weekly earnings by actual average

hours worked per week” (id. ¶ 13). Due to complaints by drivers that they had been underpaid,

plaintiff “recalculated the vacation payments, this time dividing average weekly earnings by a

fictional 5-day week, 8 hours per day” and paid additional amounts on or about September 10,

2003 (id. ¶ 14). Nonetheless, plaintiff alleges that the original calculations were correct under

the terms of the CBA and constituted all wages that were due and payable to drivers upon

termination of their employment (id. ¶ 15).

The proposed intervenors each filed claims with the Labor Commissioner, alleging that

plaintiff violated California Labor Code § 201 and seeking penalties under California Labor

Code § 203 (id. ¶¶ 16–19). The claims of Patrick McLeskey, David Barber, Charles Thompson

and Michael Sullivan were assigned State Case Numbers 14-20533 JS, 14-20573 JS,

14-20574 JS, and 14-20575 JS, respectively (ibid.).

On June 6, 2005, plaintiff Ryder Integrated Logistics, Inc. filed its complaint in the

above-captioned action against defendant Donna Dell, in her capacity as Labor Commissioner

and Chief of the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, Department of Industrial Relations,

Labor and Workforce Development Agency for the State of California. Therein, plaintiff

sought declaratory and injunctive relief, to prevent defendant “from conducting a hearing or

making any determination on liability and/or penalties in State Case Numbers 14-20533 JS,

14-20573 JS, 14-20574 JS, and 14-20575 JS” (id. ¶ 2).

Plaintiff objects to allowing the administrative hearings on these claims to proceed,

arguing that they are pre-empted by federal labor law. In short, plaintiff asserts that the Labor

Commissioner would have to interpret the CBA in order to determine whether wages for

accrued, unpaid vacation were correctly paid on August 16, 2005. Defendant counters that this

Case 3:05-cv-02281-WHA Document 24 Filed 09/02/05 Page 2 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

issue is not ripe for adjudication because interpretation of the CBA may not be necessary,

depending on the nature of the evidence presented during the administrative hearings. On this

basis, defendant has already noticed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction,

currently scheduled to be heard on October 20, 2005.

This order addresses the motion to intervene filed on July 29, 2005.

ANALYSIS

1. INTERVENTION AS OF RIGHT.

Intervention as of right is appropriate, upon timely application, “when the applicant

claims an interest relating to the property or transaction which is the subject of the action and

the applicant is so situated that the disposition of the action may as a practical matter impair or

impede the applicant’s ability to protect that interest, unless the applicant’s interest is

adequately represented by existing parties.” FRCP 24(a). The Ninth Circuit has held that an

applicant seeking intervention as of right must meet four requirements: “(1) it has a ‘significant

protectable interest’ relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of the action;

(2) the disposition of the action may, as a practical matter, impair or impede the applicant’s

ability to protect its interest; (3) the application is timely; and (4) the existing parties may not

adequately represent the applicant’s interest.” Donnelly v. Glickman, 159 F.3d 406, 409 (9th

Cir. 1998)(internal citation omitted). Rule 24(a)(2) is generally interpreted “broadly in favor of

intervention.” Ibid.

There appears to be no dispute regarding the first three requirements for intervention as

of right. Instead, plaintiff’s opposition brief focuses exclusively on the issue of whether the

interests of the proposed intervenors is adequately represented by the Labor Commissioner.

“The burden on proposed intervenors in showing inadequate representation is minimal,

and would be satisfied if they could demonstrate that representation of their interests ‘may be’

inadequate.” Arakaki v. Cayetano, 324 F.3d 1078, 1086 (9th Cir. 2003)(internal citation

omitted). The Court looks to three factors in determining the adequacy of representation:

(1) whether an existing party will undoubtedly make all of a proposed intervenor’s arguments;

(2) whether the present party is capable and willing to make such arguments; and (3) whether a

Case 3:05-cv-02281-WHA Document 24 Filed 09/02/05 Page 3 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

proposed intervenor would offer any necessary elements to the proceeding that other parties

would neglect. Ibid. Where an existing party has the same ultimate objective, there is a

presumption that the proposed intervenor’s interests will be adequately represented. Ibid.

Here, plaintiff claims that the proposed intervenors and the Labor Commissioner share

the same goal of allowing the administrative hearings to proceed, particularly as a motion to

dismiss has already been filed (Opp. 3). The Court agrees. Indeed, the proposed intervenors

openly acknowledge that their interests are “currently aligned” (Br. 6). They argue, however,

that they are unsure whether the Labor Commissoner has the ability or desire to make particular

arguments, not specifically identified, on their behalf (ibid.). In addition, the proposed

intervenors argue that their interests may diverge in the future if the Labor Commissioner later

determines that their claims are pre-empted because interpretation of the CBA is necessary

(Reply Br. 1). Although FRCP 24(a)(2) is generally interpreted broadly in favor of allowing

intervention, at this stage of litigation the Labor Commissioner is adequately representing the

interests of the proposed intervenors. Accordingly, this order finds that intervention as of right

is not appropriate.

2. PERMISSIVE INTERVENTION.

In the alternative, permissive intervention may be granted where the applicant

demonstrates “(1) independent grounds for jurisdiction; (2) the motion is timely; and (3) the

applicant’s claim or defense, and the main action, have a question of law or a question of fact in

common. FRCP 24(b); Nw. Forest Resource Council v. Glickman, 82 F.3d 825, 839 (9th Cir.

1996). “In exercising its discretion the court shall consider whether the intervention will unduly

delay or prejudice the adjudication of the rights of the original parties.” FRCP 24(b).

The Court declines to exercise its discretion to allow permissive jurisdiction here

because there are no independent grounds for federal jurisdiction over the claims/counterclaims

of the proposed intervenors. While the proposed intervenors failed to append a pleading setting

forth the claim or defense for which intervention is sought, as required by FRCP 24(c), it is

likely that they will only be able to assert causes of action under state law (i.e., violation of

California Labor Code § 201).

Case 3:05-cv-02281-WHA Document 24 Filed 09/02/05 Page 4 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

5

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the motion to intervene is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 

Should circumstances change, the proposed intervenors may renew their motion. The hearing

on this motion, currently scheduled for SEPTEMBER 15, 2005 AT 8:00 A.M., is VACATED. The

case management conference is CONTINUED until SEPTEMBER 15, 2005 AT 3:00 P.M.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 2, 2005 WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-02281-WHA Document 24 Filed 09/02/05 Page 5 of 5