N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT EDDIE SILVA, on be ha l f of him se lf a nd a ll othe rs sim i la

rly situa te d, Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt, v. DOM INO’ S PIZZA, LLC , a M ic higa n C orporation; DOES, 1-10, inc lusive ,

De fe nda n ts-Appe lle e s. No. 21-55093 DC No. 8:18-c v-02145-JVS M EM OR ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia Jam e s V. Se lna , Distric t

Judge , Pre siding A rgue d a nd Subm itte d Ja

nua ry 12, 2022 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : TASHIM Aand M . SM ITH, C i rc uit Judge s , a nd S. M U RPHY, ** Distric t Judge . Pla intiff EddieSilva

a ppe a ls the judgm e nt of the distric t c ourt in fa vor of de fe nda n t Dom ino’ s Piz z a , LLC . W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. 

# FIL ED FEB 8 2022 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The Honora

ble Ste phe n Jose p h M urphy III, Unite d Stat e s Distric t Judge for the Ea ste rn Distric t of M ic higa n, sitting by

de signa t ion.W e re vie wthe grant or de nia l of sum m ary judgm e nt de novo, W

illiams v . N

at’l Union Fire

Ins. C o. of Pittsburgh , 792 F.3d 1136, 1139 (9th C ir. 2015), a nd we a ffirm . 1. The distric t c ourt did not err in de ny ing Silva ’ s m otion for sum m ary judgm e nt on his c la i m

tha t Dom ino’ s fa ile d

to c om pe nsate him

at a n hourly rate for othe r nonproduc tive tim e , in viola tion of C a l. La

b or C ode § 226.2(a )(4). Dom ino’ s polic y

m anua l sta

te s tha t drive rs a re pa i d “ an hourly

downtim e rate for c e rta in non-driving ac tivitie s,” and Dom ino’ s R ule 30(b)(6) de pone nt te stifie d tha t this downtime rate wa s $20 pe r hour. Silva ’ s pa yroll re c ords c onfirm

tha t he wa s c om pe nsate d at this ra

te : whe n he re c orde d m o re tha n 30 m inute s of tim e for c om ple t ing pre - and post-trip ta sks on his trip she e ts, Dom ino’ s c om pe nsate d him for the a dditiona l tim e at a n hourly rat e of $20, a s Silva

c onc e de s. Thus, a re a s ona ble jury c ould find tha

t Dom ino’ s c om

pe nsate d Silva for othe r nonproduc t ive tim e at a

n hourly rate rathe r tha

n a flat rate . 2. The distric t c ourt did not err in gra n ting sum m a ry judgm e nt to Dom ino’ s on Silva ’ s unpa id wa ge s c la im unde r C a l. La

bor C ode § 226.2(a )(1). Unde r C a lifornia

la w, the re is a

pre sum ption tha t e m ploy e e s a re not working when the y are c loc ke d out; to re

b ut this pre sum

ption, a n e m ploy e e m ust show tha

t his e m ploy e r “ kne w or should ha ve known off-the -c l oc k work wa s oc c urring.”

2Brink

e r Re st. C orp. v . Supe r ior C

t. , 273 P.3d 513, 544 (C a l. 2012). He re , Silva fa ile d to a dduc e e vide nc e from whic h a re a s ona b le jury c o uld find tha

t Dom ino’ s kne w or should ha

ve known tha

t he wa s working off thec loc k . The c om p a ny ha d a writte n polic y

prohibiting off-the -c loc k work. Domino’ s e nforc e d this policy , inc l uding through drive

r a udits. Dom

i no’ s , in fa c t, te rm inate d Silva ’ s e m ploy m e nt whe n a n a udit re ve a le d tha

t he wa s working during a m e a l bre ak. Silva

did not ordina rily re c ord his a dditiona l tim e on his trip she e t s, a s re quire d by c om pa ny polic y . No m ana ge r or supe rvisor e ve r dire c te d Silva not to re c ord this a dditiona l tim e on his trip she e ts. W he n Silva oc c a siona lly

re c orde d a dditiona l tim e on his trip she e t s, Dom ino’ s c om pe nsate d him

for the tim e , a

nd Silva a dduc e d no e vide nc e tha

t Dom ino’ s c a stiga

te d him for re c ording this additiona l tim e on his trip she e ts. Silva

re lie s on va gue a sse rtions tha t drive rs disc u sse d or c om pla ine d a bout working off thec l oc k at c om pa ny m e e tings a

t whic h m ana ge rs we re pre se nt. B ut

“ a c onc lusory , se lf-se rving a ffidavit, la c king de ta ile d fa c ts a nd a ny supporting e vide nc e , is insuffic ie nt to c re ate a ge n uine issue of m ate ria l fa c t.” FTC v . Publ’g C le aring House

, Inc . , 104 F.3d 1168, 1171 (9th C ir. 1997). Silva c onc e de s tha

t he

“ ne ve r c om

pla ine d to a

ny body ” a bout off-the -c l oc k work. Silva c onte nds tha

t the burde n -shifting fra

m e w ork disc usse d in Ande r son v . Mt. C le me ns Potte ry

C o. , 328 U.S. 680, 687–88 (1946), a pplie s he re be c a

use 3Dom ino’ s fa ile d to sa tisfy its sta

tutory duty to re c ord the a c t

ua l tim e drive rs spe nt on pre - and post-trip ta sks. Silva , howe ve r, ha s not shown tha t Dom ino’ s fa ile d to c om ply with a ny spe c ific sta

tutory re c ord-ke e ping re quire m e nt. He c ite s only C a l. La bor C ode § 226.2(a )(5), but he ha s not shown tha t Dom ino’ s viola

te d the re c ordke e ping re quire m e nts of this provision. 3. The distric t c ourt did not err in de ny ing Silva ’ s m otion for sum m ary judgm e nt on his c la i m

tha t Dom ino’ s fa ile d

to providewa ge sta

te m e nts c om

ply ing with C a l. La

bor C ode §§ 226(a ) and 226.2(a)(2). The re c o rd shows tha t Silva e le c te d to re c e ive his wa ge sta te m e nts e l e c tronic a lly , a

nd we a ssum e tha

t e le c tronic de live ry of wa ge sta

te m e nts is pe rm itte d unde r C a lifornia la w. Se e Murphy

v . K e nne th C oleProds., Inc . , 155 P.3d 284, 291 n.7 (C a l. 2007) (noting tha t inte rpre tations of the La

bor C ode by

the C a lifornia Division of La bor Sta nda rds Enforc e m e nt (“ D LSE” ), pa rt of the sta

te De pa rtm e n t of Industria l R e lations, a re e ntitle d to “ c onside ra tion a nd re spe c t” ); DLSE Opinion Le tte r 2006.07.06, a t 2–3 (July 7, 2006), https://www.dir.c a .gov/dlse/opinions/2006-07-06.pdf. Dom ino’ s a lso pe rm issibly provide d wa g e sta te m e nts in two pa

rts— pa y stubs a nd drive r de ta il pa yroll re ports. C

f. C ic airos v . Summit Logistic s, Inc . , 35 C a l . R

ptr. 3d 243, 251 (C t. App. 2005) (e xam ining whe the r wa ge sta te m e nts a n d drive r trip sum m arie s, c o nside re d toge the r, satisfie d the sta tutory re q uire m e nts). And the 4wa ge sta

t e m e nts furnishe d by

Dom ino’ s provide d a ll of the inform ation re quire d by the sta tute . Silva h a s not shown tha t he wa s re quire d

to look be y ond the wa ge sta te m e nts, to e xtrinsic doc um e nts, to a sc e rta in the re quire d inform ation. Se e Morgan v . Unite d Re t

ail Inc . , 113 C a l. R

ptr. 3d 10, 17 (C t. App. 2010) (holding that the sta tute wa s sa

tisfie d whe re “ the wa ge sta te m e n ts a c c urate l y liste d

the tota l num be r of re gula

r hours a n d the tota l num

be r of ove rtim e hours worke d by the e m ploy e e during thepa

y pe riod, a nd tha t the e m ploy e e c ould de te rm ine the sum of a ll hours worke d w ithout re fe rring to time

re c ords or other doc u me nts ” (e m pha s is a dde d)). 4. Silva

argue s for the first tim e in his rep ly brie f that Dom ino’ s did not m ake re a sona

ble e stim ate s of tim e worke d, a s re q uire d by C a l. La

bor C ode § 226.2(a )(5). Silva

c onc e de s, howe ve r, tha

t he did not pre se nt this a

rgum e nt in the a rgum e nt se c tion of his opening brie f. W e the re fore de c line to re a c h the issue . Se e Barne tt v . U.S. Air, Inc . , 228 F.3d 1105, 1110 n.1 (9th C i r. 2000) (e n ba nc ) (“ [T] he la w of this c irc uit is tha

t issue s not ra ise d in a

pa rty ’ s ope ning brie f a

re wa ive d.” ). AFFIRM E D .

5