Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02514/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02514-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Petition for Removal

---

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

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 1

2:03-CV-2514-RRB-EFB

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

No. 2:03-CV-2514-RRB-EFB

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

I. INTRODUCTION

At Docket 64 is Defendant Valentine Surfacing

(“Defendant”) with a Motion for Summary Judgment. Defendant argues

that it is entitled to summary judgment because there are no

genuine issues of material fact. The motion is opposed at Docket

SCOTT WOOD, CHARLES W. JUDSON,

WILLIAM BATES, SYBILLE GROTE,

MARTIN REEVES, ERNEST STEWART,

STEVE FORSYTHE, ROBERT

BADILLA, BRIAN THOMPSON,

KARVIN TILANDER and CHUCK

JENNINGS, on behalf of

themselves and all others

similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

VALENTINE SURFACING,

Defendant.

Case 2:03-cv-02514-RRB-EFB Document 92 Filed 09/21/07 Page 1 of 4
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

1 Inasmuch as the Court concludes the parties have

submitted memoranda thoroughly discussing the law and evidence in

support of their positions, it further concludes oral argument is

neither necessary nor warranted with regard to the instant matter.

See Mahon v. Credit Bureau of Placer County, Inc., 171 F.3d 1197,

1200 (9th Cir. 1999)(explaining that if the parties provided the

district court with complete memoranda of the law and evidence in

support of their positions, ordinarily oral argument would not be

required).

2 Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986).

3 Id. at 323-325.

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 2

2:03-CV-2514-RRB-EFB

86. Foor reasons more carefully articulated below, is hereby

GRANTED.1

II. FACTS

Inasmuch as the facts are more than substantially briefed

within the applicable pleadings, they are not repeated herein

except as necessary.

III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides

that summary judgment should be granted if there is no genuine

dispute as to material facts and if the moving party is entitled to

judgment as a matter of law. The moving party has the burden of

showing that there is no genuine dispute as to material fact.2

 The

moving party need not present evidence; it need only point out the

lack of any genuine dispute as to material fact.3 Once the moving

party has met this burden, the nonmoving party must set forth

evidence of specific facts showing the existence of a genuine issue

Case 2:03-cv-02514-RRB-EFB Document 92 Filed 09/21/07 Page 2 of 4
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

4 Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248-9

(1986).

5 Id. at 255.

6 Id. at 248-9.

7 Docket 87 at 9.

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 3

2:03-CV-2514-RRB-EFB

for trial.4 All evidence presented by the non-movant must be

believed for purposes of summary judgment, and all justifiable

inferences must be drawn in favor of the non-movant.5 However, the

nonmoving party may not rest upon mere allegations or denials, but

must show that there is sufficient evidence supporting the claimed

factual dispute to require a fact-finder to resolve the parties’

differing versions of the truth at trial.6

IV. DISCUSSION

The applicable law from California and Nevada is clear –

Defendant cannot be liable to Plaintiffs Scott Wood, Charles W.

Judson, William Bates, Sybille Grote, Martin Reeves, Earnest

Stewart, Steve Forsythe, Robert Badilla, Brian Thompson, Karvin

Tilander, Chuck Jennings, and all others similarly situated

(hereinafter collectively referred to as “Plaintiffs”), for

prevailing wages, because Defendant never employed Plaintiffs.7

Even if some employment relationship existed (which the

Court concludes it does not), Plaintiffs are still precluded under

all applicable law from obtaining wages because Plaintiffs were

delivery drivers with no functional relationship to any public

Case 2:03-cv-02514-RRB-EFB Document 92 Filed 09/21/07 Page 3 of 4
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

8 Id. (emphasis added). Indeed, “. . . the mere act of

‘hauling’ equipment or material to a public works project does not

entitle a worker to the payment (from any party) of prevailing

wages.” Docket 65 at 8 (citation omitted).

9 Id. (citation omitted).

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 4

2:03-CV-2514-RRB-EFB

works projects.8 Moreover, Plaintiffs were never involved in the

“immediate incorporation” of any and all hauled materials into any

and/or all sites.9

V. CONCLUSION

Having throughly reviewed the relevant pleadings, papers,

etc., and for good cause shown, Defendant’s motion at Docket 64 is

hereby GRANTED. Any and/or all remaining motions and/or claims are

DISMISSED as moot, and this matter is closed.

ENTERED this 21st day of September, 2007.

S/RALPH R. BEISTLINE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:03-cv-02514-RRB-EFB Document 92 Filed 09/21/07 Page 4 of 4