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

CHARLES RIDGWAY, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

WAL-MART STORES, INC.,

Defendant.

CASE NO. 3:08-cv-05221-SI 

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S

MOTION TO STAY

Re: Dkt. No. 290

Currently before the Court is defendant Wal-Mart's motion to stay this case until the Ninth 

Circuit resolves the pending appeal of Ortega v. J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc., No. 14-56034 (9th 

Cir.). Dkt. No. 290 (“Motion”). Plaintiffs have filed an opposition. Dkt. No. 305. Wal-Mart has 

replied. Dkt. No. 308. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court finds this matter suitable for 

resolution without oral argument and VACATES the hearing currently scheduled for July 1, 2016. 

Wal-Mart argues that the Ortega appeal will “bear directly on summary judgment and trial 

proceedings before this Court” and that staying the case is the most efficient way to proceed. 

Motion at 1-2. In Ortega, truck driver plaintiffs alleged that J.B. Hunt violated California's

minimum wage laws by failing to directly compensate its drivers for certain activities. Ortega, 

No. 07-cv-8336-BRO, 2014 WL 2884560, at *1 (C.D. Cal. June 4, 2014). In granting summary 

judgment for the defendant, the district court held that the Federal Aviation Administration 

Authorization Act ("FAAAA") preempted such claims. Id. at *6. Wal-Mart intends to file its own 

motion for summary judgment of plaintiffs’ minimum wage claims based on FAAAA preemption 

shortly, but argues that a stay would be the better course at this time. Mem. P. & A. at 1.

The Court disagrees. Ortega concerned a separate matter raised by different parties in 

another court. Moreover, the Central District of California decided Ortega before it had the 

benefit of the Ninth Circuit’s guidance in Dilts v. Penske Logistics, LLC, 769 F.3d 637, 650

Case 3:08-cv-05221-SI Document 313 Filed 06/24/16 Page 1 of 2
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

(2014), in which the appeals court found that the FAAAA does not preempt California meal and 

rest break laws as applied to defendant motor carriers. This case against Wal-Mart commenced 

nearly eight years ago and was already stayed for three years. Dkt. Nos. 1, 32, 37. The Court is 

reluctant to issue another stay at this time, particularly given that the Ortega appeal has been 

pending for several years and the opening brief in the Ninth Circuit is not due for two more 

months. See Mem. P. & A. at 1. The question of FAAAA preemption of California minimum 

wage law appears to be a new issue in this case,1and the Court will consider that question when 

Wal-Mart files its motion for summary judgment on July 8, 2016.

For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby DENIES Wal-Mart's motion to stay. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 24, 2016

______________________________________

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

 

1

In February 2013, Wal-Mart moved to dismiss plaintiffs’ fourth amended complaint 

based in part on arguments that the FAAAA preempted plaintiffs’ meal and rest break claims. 

Dkt. No. 65. The motion did not argue for preemption of the minimum wage claims. 

Case 3:08-cv-05221-SI Document 313 Filed 06/24/16 Page 2 of 2