Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-00131/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-00131-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-(Citizenship)

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DEV ANAND OMAN, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

DELTA AIR LINES, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 15-cv-00131-WHO 

ORDER ON MOTIONS FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Re: Dkt. Nos. 58, 59

INTRODUCTION

The parties cross-move for summary judgment on plaintiffs’ claims that Delta violates 

California Labor Code section 226 by failing to provide Flight Attendants who work for any 

amount of time on the ground in California individualized wage statements disclosing the total 

hours worked at specific hourly rates.1 Plaintiffs also separately move for summary judgment on 

their PAGA claim under Labor Code section 204, arguing that Delta fails to make timely wage 

payments for pay periods encompassing any work by Flight Attendants in California.

2

 

The facts regarding how and when Flight Attendants are paid and what information they 

are given regarding their wages are not in dispute. Instead, the dispute is whether the protections 

of the California Labor Code provisions at issue apply to the four named plaintiffs when they only 

worked a de minimis amount of time in California during any of the relevant pay periods. I 

conclude that given the undisputed facts in this case, California law does not apply. Delta’s 

 

1 Delta moves for summary judgment on plaintiffs’ third claim for wage statement penalties under 

California Labor Code section 226, fourth claim for civil penalties under the Private Attorneys’ 

General Act, (PAGA) and fifth claim for violation of California’s unfair competition law. 

2 Delta argues that plaintiffs cannot move for summary judgment on their PAGA claim under 

Labor Code section 204, because the parties’ stipulation allowing for summary judgment prior to 

class certification (Dkt. No. 57) did not encompass that claim.

Case 3:15-cv-00131-WHO Document 68 Filed 01/06/17 Page 1 of 11
2

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

Northern District of California

motion for summary judgment is GRANTED and plaintiffs’ motion is DENIED. 

BACKGROUND

I. DELTA’S PAY FORMULAS

Delta pays its flight attendants on a bid packet and rotation system where each month 

Flight Attendants “bid” on Rotations that are scheduled to depart from the Flight Attendant’s base 

the following month.3For each Rotation, the Bid Packets describe the number and length of the 

Duty Periods encompassed within the Rotation, the Report Times for each Duty Period, the 

scheduled total flight time for each Segment within the Rotation (which is measured from Block 

Out to Block In), and the amount of time that the Flight Attendant can expect to be away from 

base. The Bid Packets show which of Delta’s four pay formulas will apply to the Rotation, what 

the credit value of the Rotation is, and calculates the minimum compensation for each Rotation. The 

credit valuation included in the Bid Packets for each Rotation serves as a minimum guarantee for 

Flight Attendants with respect to credits. The actual compensation may increase as a result of delays, 

changes, or other contingencies; it cannot decrease. 

Delta’s bidding and compensation policies are laid out in Delta’s Work Rules. Delta uses four 

formulas to determine a Flight Attendant’s actual pay. The “Flight Pay” formula is based on the actual 

flight time and/or scheduled flight time of the Segments, whichever is greater. Under the “Duty Period 

Credit,” Delta “credits” flight attendants with “1 hour of flight pay for every 2 hours on duty for any 

given period.” The “Minimum Duty Period Credit” (MDC) multiplies 4:45 hours by the Flight Pay 

Rate for each Duty Period within a Rotation that has at least one flight Segment. And under the “Trip 

Credit” formula, Flight Attendants receive credit for 1 hour of flight time for each 3.5 hours they are 

away from base.

Delta runs calculations for each Flight Attendant’s Rotation and pays the Flight Attendant

using the formula that results in the highest amount of pay. In no event is a Flight Attendant’s pay less 

per hour worked in the Duty Period (all hours worked), than the California minimum wage rate. Each 

 

3

The facts regarding Delta’s four pay formulas and how they operate are not disputed and taken 

from my prior Order granting Delta’s motion for summary judgment on plaintiffs’ minimum wage 

claims. Dkt. No. 45, December 29, 2015 Order.

Case 3:15-cv-00131-WHO Document 68 Filed 01/06/17 Page 2 of 11
3

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

Northern District of California

formula uses a “base” which Delta defines as “Flight Pay Rate.” But the Flight Pay Rate is not an 

agreed to “hourly rate of pay;” it is instead part of the mathematical equation Delta runs to 

determine actual pay. 

II. DELTA’S WAGE TRACKING AND PAYMENTS

Delta provides Flight Attendants information about their hours worked and income paid 

through its Monthly Time Display System (MOTS), which is available to all Flight Attendants. 

Declaration of Brian Moreau (Dkt. No. 59-2) ¶ 8. MOTS allows Flight Attendants “real-time” 

access to their compensation for each Rotation and non-flight activity as they progress through 

their monthly schedules. Id.

Delta provides wage statements to Flight Attendants at the time of each payment of wages. 

Moreau Decl., ¶ 10. Those wage statements show each “category” of payments made to Flight 

Attendants as a separate line-items, but do not show the hours worked or hourly rates paid for 

those categories. Id.; see also, Frederick Decl., Ex. J (Eichmann wage statements). Flight 

Attendants also receive a Monthly Activity Pay Statement (“MAPS”) for each bid period, which 

contains detailed pay information about their flying and non-flying activities for each bid period. 

Moreau Decl., ¶¶11- 13; Frederick Decl. Ex. K (Eichmann 2014 MAPS). For each flight within a 

Rotation, the MAPS shows: (1) the flight number; (2) the departure day; (3) the departure and 

arrival airports; (4) the report time for the first flight of the Duty Period; (5) the Block Out and 

Block In times; and (6) the actual flight time. Moreau Decl. ¶ 12. It also shows the total hours 

credited and provides a pay summary breaking down the current monthly pay based on flight 

credits and amounts paid for holding pay, flight leader pay, and TAFB. Frederick Decl., Ex. K. 

Delta pays Flight Attendants on the 15th and last day of each month (i.e., semi-monthly). 

Moreau Decl., ¶ 9. As Delta does not know Flight Attendants’ final schedules for a bid period 

until they are complete, it provides them with a base allotment of 45 credits at their Flight Pay 

Rate per bid period, where Attendants receive 22.5 credits in each paycheck. Id. Following the 

close of the bid period, Delta calculates the total credits for that bid period, determines what 

Case 3:15-cv-00131-WHO Document 68 Filed 01/06/17 Page 3 of 11
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

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

premium pay rates should be applied4and what additional payments should be made,5and 

calculates the TAFB pay. Id.

6

 The resulting amount is then split evenly between the two pay 

periods for the following bid period. Id. For example, on October 15th, Flight Attendants receive 

22.5 credits for October 1st through 15th, plus fifty percent of their credits, premiums, and TAFB 

pay for September. Id. Then, on October 31st, the Flight Attendants receive the remaining 22.5 

credits for October plus the remaining credits, premiums, and TAFB pay for September. Id.

III. PLAINTIFFS’ WORK HISTORY

During the relevant time period, plaintiff Oman was based out of New York/JFK airport. 

Plaintiff Eichmann was based out of Los Angeles/LAX and a California resident since February 

2014, and before that was based out of Detroit (DTW) or Seattle (SEA). Plaintiff Lehr has been 

based out of San Francisco/SFO, but has been a resident of Las Vegas, Nevada throughout his 

employment with Delta. Plaintiff Flores is a resident of California based out of Los 

Angeles/LAX.

Plaintiffs do not dispute that the named plaintiffs spent between 86 percent and 97.1 

percent of their “flight-related working hours” outside of California, and that they continuously 

worked in multiple jurisdictions on a pay period, weekly, and daily basis.7

 

4

For example, for being a Flight Leader or for international flights. Moreau Decl. ¶ 12. 

5

For example, for holding pay or training pay. Moreau Decl. ¶¶ 7, 12.

6

Time Away from Base Pay (TAFB) is a meal expense reimbursement payment, paid at an hourly 

rate for every hour spent away from base for any Rotation, including non-compensable time (e.g., 

layovers after release from duty). Moreau Decl. ¶ 7. TAFB pay is paid at a different rate for 

domestic and international travel.

7

Specifically, Delta contends that the percentage of time each named plaintiffs worked outside of 

California in the relevant time periods is as follows: Eichmann 91.4%; Flores 89.1%; Lehr 86%; 

and Oman 97.1%. Declaration of Valentin Estevez (Dkt. No. 59-3) at 5-6. Delta calculated those 

figures by using two measures to determine time spent on the ground in California; MAPS reports 

showing reporting time and Block In and Block Out, and on-time performance reports showing 

taxi times. Estevez Decl. at 2-5. Delta’s expert used those measures for flights flown by the 

named plaintiffs into and out of California and compared report times and departure times, turn 

time at California airports, deplaning times at California airports, and taxi-times. Estevez Decl. at 

4. In their declarations, the named plaintiffs assert only that they “regularly” fly into and out of 

California airports, but provide no estimate as to how much time they worked in California in any 

given pay period or during the class period. See Dkt. No. 58-19, Flores Decl. ¶ 2 (“regularly fly 

into and out of California airports”); Dkt. No. 58-20, Lehr Decl. ¶ 2 (same); Dkt. No. 58-21, 

Eichmann Decl. ¶ 2 (same).

Case 3:15-cv-00131-WHO Document 68 Filed 01/06/17 Page 4 of 11
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

IV. PRIOR ORDER

In my prior Order granting Delta’s motion for summary judgment on plaintiffs’ minimum 

wage claims, I concluded that Delta’s payment practice did not violate California’s minimum 

wage requirements because Delta’s Work Rules compensated Flight Attendants for all of their 

hours worked, in a fully disclosed manner based upon the floor guaranteed by the Bid Packet 

process. I recognized that under Delta’s system, workers were not provided a guaranteed 

minimum rate for each hour on Duty, but that the Flight Pay Rate was used as part of the 

mathematical equation Delta runs to determine actual pay. December 2015 Order at 5.

The parties now cross-move for summary judgment on plaintiffs’ remaining claims under 

California Labor Code sections 226 and 204. 

LEGAL STANDARD

I. SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Summary judgment on a claim or defense is appropriate “if the movant shows that there is 

no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of 

law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). In order to prevail, a party moving for summary judgment must show 

the absence of a genuine issue of material fact with respect to an essential element of the nonmoving party’s claim, or to a defense on which the non-moving party will bear the burden of 

persuasion at trial. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). Once the movant has 

made this showing, the burden then shifts to the party opposing summary judgment to identify 

“specific facts showing there is a genuine issue for trial.” Id. The party opposing summary 

judgment must then present affirmative evidence from which a jury could return a verdict in that 

party’s favor. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242, 257 (1986).

On summary judgment, the Court draws all reasonable factual inferences in favor of the 

non-movant. Id. at 255. In deciding a motion for summary judgment, “[c]redibility determinations, 

the weighing of the evidence, and the drawing of legitimate inferences from the facts are jury 

functions, not those of a judge.” Id. However, conclusory and speculative testimony does not raise 

genuine issues of fact and is insufficient to defeat summary judgment. See Thornhill Publ’g Co., 

Inc. v. GTE Corp., 594 F.2d 730, 738 (9th Cir.1979).

Case 3:15-cv-00131-WHO Document 68 Filed 01/06/17 Page 5 of 11
6

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

Northern District of California

II. CALIFORNIA LABOR CODE

Section 226 requires employers to “semimonthly or at the time of each payment of wages” 

provide employees “either as a detachable part of the check, draft, or voucher paying the 

employee's wages, or separately if wages are paid by personal check or cash, an accurate itemized 

statement in writing showing (1) gross wages earned, (2) total hours worked by the employee . . ., 

(4) all deductions . . ., (5) net wages earned, (6) the inclusive dates of the period for which the 

employee is paid, (7) the name of the employee and only the last four digits of his or her social 

security number or an employee identification number other than a social security number, (8) the 

name and address of the legal entity that is the employer . . ., and (9) all applicable hourly rates in 

effect during the pay period and the corresponding number of hours worked at each hourly rate by 

the employee. . . . For purposes of this subdivision, ‘copy’ includes a duplicate of the itemized 

statement provided to an employee or a computer-generated record that accurately shows all of the 

information required by this subdivision.” Cal. Lab. Code § 226.

Section 204 requires that all wages “are due and payable twice during each calendar 

month, on days designated in advance by the employer as the regular paydays. Labor performed 

between the 1st and 15th days, inclusive, of any calendar month shall be paid for between the 16th 

and the 26th day of the month during which the labor was performed, and labor performed 

between the 16th and the last day, inclusive, of any calendar month, shall be paid for between the 

1st and 10th day of the following month.” Cal. Lab. Code § 204.

DISCUSSION

Delta’s main argument is that the four named plaintiffs cannot be covered by Sections 226 

and 204 of the California Labor Code – which provide procedural protections for wages earned 

under California law – when the vast majority of their work occurred in federal airspace governed 

by federal regulations and any work on the ground in California was de minimis and incidental to 

their work as Flight Attendants in the air. Plaintiffs contend that whenever a Flight Attendant flies 

into or out of California, their work in that pay period becomes covered by the Labor Code 

sections (and therefore California-compliant wage statements and payments are required), 

regardless of where the Flight Attendant resides or is based out of, and regardless of how much 

Case 3:15-cv-00131-WHO Document 68 Filed 01/06/17 Page 6 of 11
7

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

Northern District of California

time that Flight Attendant works on the ground in California during that pay period. 

I. SECTION 226

A. Delta’s Wage Statements and Wage Information

Delta does not dispute that it does not provide Flight Attendants an itemized wage 

statement showing all of the information required under Section 226 for each bi-monthly pay 

period, particularly the exact hours worked by each Flight Attendant and the rate or rates the 

Flight Attendant was paid for those hours. Delta argues that it cannot provide that information 

because, as discussed extensively on the prior motion for summary judgment, Delta uses an 

atypical method of payment which is not based on a set hourly wage rate for each of the tasks it 

requires of Flight Attendants. 

Delta contends, however, that the essential information required by Section 226 is

provided through the monthly MAPS and the accessible-anytime MOTS. The MAPS statements 

are apparently generated on a monthly basis, not bi-monthly as required under Section 226. 

Moreover, MAPS does not disclose an hourly wage rate for each hour worked, but instead show 

the formula of how the final payments for each Rotation were determined. MOTS is not a 

“statement” provided to the Flight Attendants at the time they are paid, but instead a system that 

they can access. As with the MAPS, it does not disclose an hourly rate for each category of work

performed by plaintiffs.

Delta cannot rely on the MAPS and MOTS to argue that Delta satisfies the requirements of 

Section 226. However, as discussed below, I reject plaintiffs’ theory of liability under Section 

226. Because the undisputed facts show that the named plaintiffs only worked a de minimis

amount of time on the ground in California, the “situs” of their work is not California. For the 

reasons that follow, California Labor Code provisions do not apply to their wage statements. 

B. Applicability of Section 226

Plaintiffs argue that under the California Supreme Court’s decision in Sullivan v. Oracle 

Corp., 51 Cal. 4th 1191 (2011) (Sullivan I), when any work is performed within California, the 

employee should receive a Section 226-compliant wage statement regardless of where the bulk of 

her or his work in the relevant pay period is performed. However, neither Sullivan I nor the 

Case 3:15-cv-00131-WHO Document 68 Filed 01/06/17 Page 7 of 11
8

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

Northern District of California

subsequent decision from the Ninth Circuit in Sullivan v. Oracle Corp., 662 F.3d 1265, 1267 (9th 

Cir. 2011 (Sullivan II) addressed the question presented here. In the Sullivan cases, the nonresident plaintiffs sought overtime pay for full days and weeks worked “entirely in California.” 

Sullivan I, 51 Cal. 4th at 1196; id. at 1199-00 (“plaintiffs here claim overtime only for entire days 

and weeks worked in California, in accordance with the statutory definition of overtime.” 

(emphasis in original)).8 The California Supreme Court focused narrowly on the nature, scope, 

and purpose of the Labor Code provision at issue there – requiring overtime for any entire day or 

week worked in California – and concluded that in light of the purpose and language of Section 

510, it could be applied against the California-based employer for the full days and entire weeks 

worked by the non-resident employees in California. The court was careful to limit its holding to 

overtime under Section 510, and repeatedly noted that its conclusion under Section 510 did not 

automatically apply to other provisions of the Labor Code, for example, those regulating “pay 

stubs.” Sullivan v. Oracle Corp., 51 Cal. 4th at 1201. 

Here, plaintiffs ignore the purpose and scope of Section 226. They argue, regardless even 

of whether the Flight Attendant’s or the employer’s residence is in California or whether they

worked a full pay period in California, that the trigger for liability is simply performing any work 

in California during a pay period. Given the nature of the claim under Section 226 and the nature 

of the plaintiffs’ jobs as Flight Attendants, it is wrong to ignore whether California can be 

considered the situs of the Flight Attendants’ work sufficient to invoke Section 226’s wage 

statement requirements. 

The analysis Judge Alsup recently undertook in a factually analogous case, Ward v. United 

Airlines, Inc., No. C 15-02309 WHA, 2016 WL 3906077 (N.D. Cal. July 19, 2016), is instructive. 

There, Judge Alsup determined that Section 226 did not apply to wage statements issued to pilots 

who were California residents but who worked “principally out of state.” Id. at *3-5; see also 

Aguilar v. Zep Inc., No. 13-CV-00563-WHO, 2014 WL 4245988, at *12 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 27, 

 

8

The statute at issue provided that “[a]ny work in excess of eight hours in one workday and . . .

40 hours in any one workweek . . . shall be compensated at the rate of no less than one and onehalf times the regular rate of pay. . . .” Cal. Lab. Code, § 510(a). 

Case 3:15-cv-00131-WHO Document 68 Filed 01/06/17 Page 8 of 11
9

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

Northern District of California

2014) (“‘the critical factor is where the work at issue is performed’ by the plaintiff.”). 

Plaintiffs argue that the “situs” analysis in Ward ignored the Sullivan precedent and should 

not be followed. However, plaintiffs read Sullivan far too broadly. To determine whether a

particular California Labor Code provision should apply in a situation where work was performed 

in California and in other jurisdictions, the appropriate analysis must focus on the particular Labor 

Code provision invoked, the nature of the work being performed, the amount of work being 

performed in California, and the residence of the plaintiff and the employer. 

This multi-factor approach is consistent with the recent ruling in Bernstein v. Virgin Am., 

Inc., No. 15-CV-02277-JST (N.D. Cal. Jan. 5, 2017), where Judge Tigar concluded that California 

wage and hour protections, including Section 226, applied to a class of California flight attendants. 

Judge Tigar reached that conclusion because: (i) the attendants were California residents; (ii) 

attendants sometimes worked entire days on consecutive flights between California airports; (iii) 

the defendant was headquartered in California; (iv) the wrongful conduct (issuance and application 

of compensation policies) emanated from California; and (v) the defendant had other “deep ties” 

to California, including that almost 90% of its daily flights departed from a California airport and 

it received millions of dollars in state subsidies to train all of its flight attendants in California. 

That plaintiffs only spent around 25% of their total work time in California was a factor, but not a 

determinative one in light of the others. Bernstein January 5, 2017 Order at 6-14. 

The facts in Bernstein are starkly different than the undisputed facts here. Here, the

question is whether Section 226 should apply based solely on a Flight Attendant’s performance of 

a de minimis amount of work in California during any pay period, not on the Flight Attendants’ 

residence, an employer’s California residence or other “deep ties” to California, or the

performance of a significant amount of work in a particular pay period in California. Plaintiffs 

assert that the amount of time worked in California – either during the class period or during a 

particular pay period – is irrelevant to the applicability of Section 226, but that ignores important

California and federal precedent to the contrary. See, e.g., Tidewater Marine W., Inc. v. 

Bradshaw, 14 Cal. 4th 557, 578 (1996) (“[I]f an employee resides in California, receives pay in 

California, and works exclusively, or principally, in California, then that employee is a ‘wage 

Case 3:15-cv-00131-WHO Document 68 Filed 01/06/17 Page 9 of 11
10

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

Northern District of California

earner of California’ and presumptively enjoys the protection of IWC regulations.”); see also Oil, 

Chem. & Atomic Workers Int'l Union, AFL-CIO v. Mobil Oil Corp., 426 U.S. 407, 420 (1976) 

(concluding that the “predominant job situs is the controlling factor” in determining whether the 

National Labor Relations Act “right to work” savings clause applies).

Focusing on the purpose of Section 226 (to give employees clarity as to how their wages 

are calculated, so they can verify that their wages are calculated appropriately under California 

law)

9

, because the undisputed facts show that the named plaintiffs only worked a de minimis

amount of time in California (ranging from 2.6% to a high of 14%), and in light of the nature of 

their work (necessarily working in federal airspace as well as in multiple other jurisdictions but 

during each pay period and day at issue), I conclude that Section 226 does not apply to the claims 

of the four named plaintiffs. That Delta is not a California-based employer and that plaintiffs 

explicitly disclaim any reliance on the residence of the Flight Attendants further strengthen this 

conclusion.

Plaintiffs also make a totally unfounded legislative history argument that recent 

amendments to Section 226 evince the legislature’s intent to apply Section 226 to all other 

workers who sometimes work outside of the state. Plaintiffs’ MSJ at 12-13; Plaintiffs’ Reply at 

16-17.10 They rely on the legislature’s clarification that the total hours worked for certain 

categories of employees who had already been determined to be exempt from overtime by an 

existing statute or Industrial Welfare Commission order need not be reported on their wage 

statements.11 That has nothing to do with whether employees who work a de minimis amount in 

California are covered by Section 226. There is no logic or support to plaintiffs’ argument. 

 

9

Soto v. Motel 6 Operating, L.P., 4 Cal. App. 5th 385, 392 (Ct. App. 2016) (“section 226(a)’s 

statutory purpose . . . is to document the paid wages to ensure the employee is fully informed 

regarding the calculation of those wages.” (emphasis in original)).

10 Plaintiffs’ reliance on the legislative history of other provisions of the Labor Code, e.g., Cal. 

Lab. Code § 245.5(a)(4) is similarly misplaced. Plaintiffs’ MSJ at 13. As the Sullivan I court 

recognized, the determination of whether a Labor Code provision extends to work performed in 

part in California depends on an analysis of the particular Labor Code provision at issue. Sullivan 

v. Oracle Corp., 51 Cal. 4th at 1201.

11 http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billAnalysisClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160AB2535.

Case 3:15-cv-00131-WHO Document 68 Filed 01/06/17 Page 10 of 11
11

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

Northern District of California

In sum, there is no basis to apply Section 226’s procedural protections to the named 

plaintiffs. 12

II. APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 204

Like Section 226, Section 204 provides California workers a procedural protection; 

requiring wages earned in California to be paid to them on a specific timeframe.13 Delta does not 

dispute that it does not comply with Section 204. However, plaintiffs at oral argument admitted 

that if I conclude Section 226 does not apply to the four named plaintiffs, then the result for their 

Section 204 claim is the same. There are no additional arguments – based on the nature, scope, 

and purpose of Section 204 – for reaching a different conclusion under that section. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment is 

GRANTED and plaintiffs’ motion is DENIED. Because no issues remain in this case, judgment 

will be entered in Delta’s favor in full.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 6, 2017

______________________________________

WILLIAM H. ORRICK

United States District Judge

 

12 Having concluded that Section 226 (and as discussed below, Section 204) cannot apply to the 

claims of the named plaintiffs, I need not reach whether application of those provisions to Delta 

would violate the dormant commerce clause. 

13 See’s Candy Shops, Inc. v. Superior Court, 210 Cal. App. 4th 889, 904–05 (2012) (“As 

observed by the California Supreme Court more than 70 years ago, ‘the sole purpose of [section 

204] is to require an employer of labor who comes within its terms to maintain two regular pay 

days each month, within the dates required in that section.’” (quoting In re Moffett, 19 Cal.App.2d 

7, 14 (1937)).

Case 3:15-cv-00131-WHO Document 68 Filed 01/06/17 Page 11 of 11