Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01539/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01539-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 29:206 Collect Unpaid Wages

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RON BELL, et al., CASE NO. CV-F-05-1539 LJO SMS

Plaintiffs, ORDER VACATING HEARING AND

vs. REQUESTING ADDITIONAL BRIEFING

FOSTER POULTRY FARMS, 

Defendant.

 /

The parties filed cross motions for summary judgment/adjudication in this class action, overtime

case. By order on February 13, 2007, this case was reassigned to District Judge Lawrence J. O’Neill and

the hearing on these motions was continued to March 5, 2007. 

The Courtrequests additional briefing on themotions. Defendant argues there is no viable claim

for overtime because plaintiffs are engaged in interstate commerce and as a matter of law are exempt

from Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) overtime requirements. Plaintiffs argue that the defendant

should be estopped from asserting this defense, based on Defendant’s representations to the drivers and

the Department of Transportation.

Plaintiffs’ cross motion is on the First Cause of Action for unpaid overtime wages under the Fair

Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 207, on the Third Cause of Action for unpaid wages under

Labor Code Section 204, 218 and 1194 to the extent that it seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, and

on the Fifth Cause of Action for violation of Business & Professions Code Section 17200 to the extent

Case 1:05-cv-01539-LJO -SMS Document 81 Filed 02/27/07 Page 1 of 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

2

that it seeks restitution of unpaid overtime wages. 

The Court requests plaintiff brief whether there is a private right of action for a violation of the

Motor Carrier exemption. 49 U.S.C. § 507; 49 C.F.R. §386.71 (referring to actions under 49 C.F.R.

§31502). The FLSA provides many exceptions, one of which is theMotor Carrier exemption, 29 U.S.C.

§213(b)(1), which provides that the provisions of FLSA (29 U.S.C. §207) shall not apply to:

(1) any employee with respect to whom the Secretary of Transportation

has power to establish qualifications and maximum hours of service

pursuant to the provisions of section 31502 of Title 49. 

Section 31502 of Title 49, authorizes the Secretary of Transportation, in the interest of safety, to

establish "qualifications and maximum hours of service for employees" of motor carriers:

The Secretary of Transportation may prescribe requirements for--

 (1) qualifications and maximum hours of service of employees of, and

safety of operation and equipment of, a motor carrier; and

 (2) qualifications and maximum hours of service of employees of, and

standards of equipment of, a motor private carrier, when needed to

promote safety of operation.

The statute and regulation authorize the Secretary of Transportation and the attorney general to pursue

a civil action. 

In addition, plaintiffs should also address whether this Court may imply a private right of action.

A plaintiff invoking an implied right of action must demonstrate that Congress intended to create not

only a private right but also a private remedy. See Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275, 286, 121 S.Ct.

1511 (2001).

The Court requests defendant brief whether the detrimental reliance sufficient to support

equitable estoppel can be found in "acquiescence." Plaintiffs argue defendant is equitably estopped to

raise the Motor Carrier Exemption defense. There is a line of cases where acquiescence is the basis for

reliance. Mahoning Investment Co. v. United States, 3 F.Supp. 622, 78 Ct.Cl. 231 (1933), cert. denied

291 U.S. 675, 54 S.Ct. 526, 78 L.Ed. 1064 (1934); Bob's Big Boy Family Restaurants v. N.L.R.B., 625

F.2d 850, 854 (9 Cir. 1980) (Estoppel by acquiescence may arise from in action, when there is a legal th

duty to act); California courts apply equitable estoppel to prevent injustice where one party has, through

action or inaction, caused another to act to his detriment. American Cas. Co. of Reading, Pennsylvania

Case 1:05-cv-01539-LJO -SMS Document 81 Filed 02/27/07 Page 2 of 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

3

v. Baker, 22 F.3d 880, 891-892 (9 Cir. 1994), among others cases. th

Accordingly, the March 5, 2007 hearing on the cross-motions IS VACATED.

The parties shall file their additional briefing no later than March 9, 2007. Each parties’ brief

shall be limited to no more than ten (10) pages. The Court will then take the cross-motions under

submission and will schedule oral argument should the Court deem argument necessary. Local Rule 78-

230(h).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 27, 2007 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01539-LJO -SMS Document 81 Filed 02/27/07 Page 3 of 3