Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02092/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02092-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Labor/Mgmnt. Relations

---

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JUVENAL RIOS, on behalf of

himself and all others similarly

situated,

Plaintiffs,

v

AIRBORNE EXPRESS INC, et al,

Defendants. /

No C-05-2092 VRW

Related to case no

C-05-2203 VRW

ORDER

On February 18, 2005, plaintiff Juvenal Rios filed in San

Francisco County superior court two class actions that defendants

subsequently removed to this court pursuant to the Class Action

Fairness Act, 28 USC § 1332(d). Doc #1 of 05-2092; Doc #1 of 05-

2203. In the first removed case, C-05-2092 VRW, Rios alleges that

defendants Airborne Express, Inc (“Airborne”) and Service America

Courier Corp (“Service America”) violated California law by, inter

alia, failing to pay various wages, furnish itemized wage

statements or provide meal and rest periods to defendants’ nonexempt, California employees. Doc #1 of 05-2092, Ex 1. In the

second removed case, C-05-2203 VRW, Rios makes similar allegations

Case 3:05-cv-02092-VRW Document 73 Filed 07/24/06 Page 1 of 9
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

against Airborne, DHL Worldwide Express, Inc (the companies

collectively referred to as “Airborne/DHL”) and Service America on

behalf of defendants’ California employees who were station

managers, station supervisors or dock supervisors. Doc #1 of 05-

2203, Ex 1; id, ¶ 18. The claims in both complaints arise under

various provisions of the California Labor Code, Industrial Welfare

Commission (IWC) Wage Order 4, Cal Code Regs, Title 8, § 11040 and

Cal Bus & Prof Code §§ 17200 et seq. For purposes of the present

motions, 05-2092 and 05-2203 involve almost identical filings and

issues; hence, all document references in this order will be to 05-

2203 unless otherwise specified.

Although the parties do not dispute that Service America

employs or did employ the putative class members, Rios additionally

contends that Airborne and DHL were joint employers alongside

Service America. Doc #31 at 2, 3 of 05-2092; Doc #20 at 2, 3 of

05-2203; Defendants moved to dismiss both cases with prejudice

for failure to prosecute pursuant to FRCP 41(b). Doc #23 of 05-

2203. Airborne and Airborne/DHL moved for summary judgment in 05-

2092 and 05-2203, respectively, on the claims against them. Doc

#38 of 05-2092; Doc #27 of 05-2203. Although Rios did not file an

opposition to Airborne’s and Airborne/DHL’s summary judgment

motions, Rios moved under FRCP 56(f) to continue deciding the

summary judgment motions until he received additional discovery. 

Doc #47 of 05-2203. Rios also moved for relief from the case

management schedule to delay filing a motion for class

certification, which was to be filed by June 29, 2006. Doc #31 of

05-2203.

//

Case 3:05-cv-02092-VRW Document 73 Filed 07/24/06 Page 2 of 9
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

At a June 29, 2006, hearing on the above motions, the

court denied the motions to dismiss, denied without prejudice

Rios’s motions under FRCP 56(f) and granted Rios’s motions for an

extension of time to permit him to file by July 14, 2006, an

opposition to Airborne’s and Airborne/DHL’s pending summary

judgment motions. Doc #59 of 05-2203. Despite receiving this

continuance, Rios did not file an opposition or move for a further

continuance under FRCP 56(f).

To establish that Airborne and Airborne/DHL are liable,

Rios must demonstrate that they were joint employers alongside

Service America. California courts do not appear explicitly to

have created a joint employer test, at least for the laws at issue

here. But federal courts have construed the meaning of employment

liberally when evaluating California claims and have looked to the

federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) for guidance when

consistent with the remedial purposes of California law. See, e g,

Bureerong v Uvawas, 922 F Supp 1450, 1469-71 (CD Cal 1996). In

particular, the Bureerong court applied FLSA definitions to

California Labor Code claims because the federal and state

provisions were analogous and complementary, IWC Wage Orders

apparently had adopted definitions of employment in terms nearly

identical to the FLSA’s definitions and the California Supreme

Court in construing a related California remedial statute had

“cited with approval the various United States Supreme Court cases

defining ‘employment’ in the context of the FLSA.” Id. See SG

Borello & Sons v Department of Industrial Relations, 769 P2d 399,

48 Cal 3d 341, 352 (1989).

//

Case 3:05-cv-02092-VRW Document 73 Filed 07/24/06 Page 3 of 9
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

In the present case, both parties assume that the joint

employer test as developed for the FLSA applies to Rios’s state law

claims. Doc ##49, 51. Because of the similarities underlying the

FLSA and the California laws at issue here, the court applies the

FLSA’s joint employer test to Rios’s claims.

When determining joint employer status under the FLSA,

courts must consider the totality of the circumstances, including

“economic realities.” Bonnette v California Health and Welfare

Agency, 704 F2d 1465, 1469 (9th Cir 1983). In Bonnette, the Ninth

Circuit found that determining joint employer status depends on

four primary factors: whether the alleged employer (1) could hire

and fire employees; (2) supervised and controlled employee work

schedules or conditions of payment; (3) determined the rate and

method of payment and (4) maintained employment records. Id at

1470. See also Moreau v Air France, 356 F3d 942, 947 (9th Cir

2004). In Torres-Lopez v May, 111 F3d 633, 639-40 (9th Cir 1997),

the Ninth Circuit added to this analysis eight secondary “nonregulatory” factors that support joint employer status if: (1) the

work done by the employee was analogous to a specialty job on the

production line; (2) the responsibility under the contract was

standard for the industry and could be passed from one contractor

to another without material change and little negotiation; (3) the

purported joint employer owns or has an interest in the premises

and equipment used for the work; (4) the employees did not have a

business organization that could shift as a unit from one worksite

to another; (5) the services rendered were piecework and did not

require special skill, initiative or foresight; (6) the employee

did not have an opportunity for profit or loss depending upon the

Case 3:05-cv-02092-VRW Document 73 Filed 07/24/06 Page 4 of 9
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

employee’s managerial skill; (7) there was permanence in the

working relationship and (8) the service rendered was an integral

part of the alleged joint employer’s business. Id at 640; Moreau,

356 F3d at 947-48. The Ninth Circuit has subsequently suggested

that the first and eighth Torres-Lopez factors, which focus on

whether the work was an integral part of the alleged employer’s

business, might not have any bearing outside of production line

employment situations. Moreau, 356 F3d at 952.

The Ninth Circuit has also found that the Bonnette

factors weigh heavily in determining joint employer status. See

Moreau, 356 F3d at 946-47 (stating that the court “noted [in

Bonnette] that the joint employment determination required

consideration of the total employment situation, but focused

primarily on [the] four [Bonnette] factors”). See also Bureerong,

922 F Supp at 1467-69 (relying only on the Bonnette factors in

performing a joint employer analysis).

Rios bears the ultimate burden of persuasion on the issue

whether Airborne and Airborne/DHL are joint employers with Service

America. See Martinez-Mendoza v Champion International Corp, 340

F3d 1200, 1209 (11th Cir 2003) (“Because the laborer has the burden

of proof [on his FLSA claim], to prevail he [ultimately] must

establish the joint-employment inference by a preponderance of the

evidence.”). Hence, for purposes of the present summary judgment

motions, Airborne and Airborne/DHL may discharge their burdens of

production by demonstrating “that the nonmoving party does not have

enough evidence of an essential element [of its claim] to carry its

ultimate burden of persuasion at trial.” Nissan Fire & Marine Ins

Co v Fritz Cos, 210 F3d 1099, 1102 (9th Cir 2000). Rios may not

Case 3:05-cv-02092-VRW Document 73 Filed 07/24/06 Page 5 of 9
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

6

simply rely on the pleadings but must produce significant probative

evidence, by affidavit or as otherwise provided in FRCP 56,

supporting a claim that a genuine issue of material fact exists. 

TW Elec Serv v Pacific Elec Contractors Assn, 809 F2d 626, 630 (9th

Cir 1987).

Airborne and Airborne/DHL have satisfied their burden of

production here. First, the Bonnette factors appear to weigh

strongly in their favor. The cartage agreements between Airborne,

Airborne/DHL and Service America indicate that Airborne and

Airborne/DHL are independent contractors, separate from Service

America. Masushige Decl, Exs A-D. One agreement states that

Service America has the sole: (1) “discretion and control as to

the manner and means of performance * * * and the selection and

supervision of its employees,” (2) “responsibil[ity] for the

interviewing, hiring, training, disciplining and termination of its

employees” and (3) responsibility “to make all payments and prepare

all report concerning its business, income or employees * * *.” 

Id, Ex B, ¶¶ 3, 18. The agreement also states that “neither

[Service America] nor any of [Service America’s] employees shall be

considered under the provisions of this Agreement or otherwise as

having any employee status with Airborne * * *.” Id, Ex B, ¶ 18. 

Airborne and Airborne/DHL also observe that the National

Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has recently affirmed an

administrative law judge’s (“ALJ’s”) decision that Airborne was not

a joint employer with its contracted parcel delivery companies in

Rhode Island. Doc #27 at 9-10. The ALJ stated:

//

//

Case 3:05-cv-02092-VRW Document 73 Filed 07/24/06 Page 6 of 9
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

7

Airborne cannot be construed as a joint employer

with any of the contract cartage companies that it

has engaged in this locality. The undisputed facts

show that Airborne has entered into contracts

which, by their terms, carefully and deliberately

define a cartage company as an independent

contractor who is to have full and complete control

over the hiring, firing, discipline, work

assignments and all other terms and conditions of

employment of its own employees.

There is no evidence whatsoever to indicate that

Airborne, in Rhode Island, has had any say or

influence in these decisions and no evidence to

suggest that the hiring, disciplining or firing of

a contractor’s employees was in any way under the

control or even the suggestion of Airborne. The

day to day supervision of the drivers and dock

persons employed by the contractors in Rhode Island

have been carried out exclusively by the

contractor’s supervisors and no evidence was

presented to suggest the contrary.

In re Airborne Freight Company, 338 NLRB 597, 605-06 (2002). 

Similarly here, the cartage contracts state that Service America

exercises independent control over its employees and there is no

evidence in the record that Airborne or Airborne/DHL controlled or

supervised Rios and the other plaintiffs.

Because Airborne and Airborne/DHL have satisfied their

burden of production, Rios must provide some evidence indicating

there is a genuine issue of material fact whether these defendants

were joint employers with Service America. But there seems to be

no such evidence in the record and Rios has pointed to none. It is

telling that Rios failed to file an opposition or provide any

evidence to support his case even after the court granted him a

continuance.

Although Rios has not filed another FRCP 56(f) motion,

the court notes it is unlikely that additional discovery would have

had any impact on the pending summary judgment motions. The

Case 3:05-cv-02092-VRW Document 73 Filed 07/24/06 Page 7 of 9
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

8

discovery that Rios had previously requested related only to the

eight Torres-Lopez factors. Given the primacy of the Bonnette

factors and how decisively they appear to favor defendants, this

additional discovery likely would not have been particularly

useful.

Moreover, Rios’s previous discovery requests were overly

broad and were at least somewhat irrelevant to the joint employer

issue. For example, Rios had claimed that determining the third

and seventh Torres-Lopez factors required discovering:

Any and all RECORDS, DOCUMENTS, and/or WRITINGS

that relate to Workers’ Compensation policies

entered into and/or in effect at any and all sites,

including, but not limited to, stations housing

alleged “independent contractors,” in California

operated, managed, leased or owned by AIRBORNE

during the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD.

Doc #46 (Martinez Decl), Ex 5 at 11; Martinez Decl at 3, 5. But it

is far from clear, and Rios has not bothered to elaborate, how this

discovery would help determine whether the premises and equipment

of the employer were used for work (Torres-Lopez factor 3) and

whether there was permanence in the working relationship (TorresLopez factor 7).

In any event, Rios has already had sufficient time to

obtain discovery in these seventeen-month old cases and the court

declines to delay adjudicating the pending summary judgment motions

any longer. Accordingly, the court GRANTS Airborne’s motion for

summary judgment in 05-2092 (Doc #38 of 05-2092) and GRANTS

Airborne/DHL’s motion for summary judgment in 05-2203 (Doc #27).

//

//

//

Case 3:05-cv-02092-VRW Document 73 Filed 07/24/06 Page 8 of 9
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

9

At the pretrial conference currently set for September

12, 2006, the remaining parties in these cases should be prepared

to address what issues, if any, remain to be adjudicated.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 

VAUGHN R WALKER

United States District Chief Judge

Case 3:05-cv-02092-VRW Document 73 Filed 07/24/06 Page 9 of 9