Filed 2/18/20

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

GULF OFFSHORE 

LOGISTICS, LLC, et al.,

 Petitioners,

v.

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF 

VENTURA COUNTY, 

 Respondent;

CLAUDE NORRIS et al.,

 Real Parties in Interest.

2d Civil No. B298318

(Super. Ct. No. 56-2016-

00484144-CU-OE-VTA)

(Ventura County)

Non-California residents and former crew members of a 

vessel that provided maintenance services to oil platforms located 

in the Pacific Ocean off the California coast filed this action 

alleging violations of California state wage and hour laws against 

their employers and the owners of the vessel, petitioners Gulf 

Offshore Logistics, LLC and JNB Operating, LLC. Petitioners 

moved for summary judgment on the theories that Louisiana 

rather than California law governed the employment 
2

relationships at issue, and that either the federal Fair Labor 

Standards Act (FLSA) or the dormant commerce clause 

preempted California law with respect to these employees. The 

superior court denied the motion because petitioners “have not 

demonstrated that Louisiana law should apply” or that California 

law has been preempted. 

Petitioners sought writ of mandate directing the superior 

court to vacate its order denying the motion for summary 

judgment and to enter a new order granting the motion. We 

issued an order to show cause and temporarily stayed all trial 

court proceedings. We conclude the trial court erred because 

Louisiana law, rather than California law, applies. Accordingly, 

we grant the writ of mandate.

Facts

Petitioners own and operate the Adele Elise, a vessel that 

provides services to oil platforms located off the California coast. 

The crew members represent a class of persons who were 

employed by petitioners to work on the Adele Elise after July 14, 

2012. They allege petitioners failed to comply with numerous 

provisions of California’s wage and hour laws, including paying 

minimum wage, paying wages at the designated rate, paying 

overtime, providing meal and rest periods, maintaining adequate 

payroll records, providing accurate wage statements, and paying 

all wages due at termination.

Petitioners are limited liability companies formed under 

Louisiana law. Every member of both companies is also a 

Louisiana resident. The companies have their headquarters in 

Louisiana and the Adele Elise, the vessel on which crew members

were employed, is registered in that state. Although the Adele

Elise operated for a time in the Gulf of Mexico, it was 
3

repositioned to the Pacific Ocean in March 2011 and remained 

there until October 2017. 

Petitioners’ administrative functions are performed at their 

headquarters in Louisiana. Each former crew member traveled 

to Louisiana to apply in person for a job and to interview for that 

job. They also completed and acknowledged receipt of 

employment-related documents in Louisiana including: the 

employment application; job description; employee safety 

manual; minimum training requirements; disembarkation policy; 

pre-employment checklist; permission to release payroll check;

non-California state and federal tax forms; Department of 

Homeland Security forms and direct deposit authorizations. 

Petitioners conduct job training and orientation for employees in 

Louisiana. In addition, staff at petitioners’ Louisiana offices 

make arrangements to transport the crew members to and from 

the vessels to which they are assigned. 

The crew members worked on the Adele Elise from March 

2011 when it was repositioned from the Gulf of Mexico to the 

Pacific Ocean. In October 2017, the vessel left California. 

Between 2011 and 2017, the Adele Elise was docked at Port 

Hueneme and provided services to oil platforms located in federal 

waters off the California coast. While stationed at Port 

Hueneme, the Adele Elise traveled through the Santa Barbara 

Channel to deliver supplies and pick up refuse from four oil 

platforms. Between July 2012 and May 2015, the Adele Elise 

made approximately three trips each week to the oil platforms. 

After an oil spill occurred in May 2015, the average number of 

weekly trips declined.

The crew members are a class that is represented by three 

named members: Claude Norris, Douglas Kwaw and James 
4

Musgrove. None of the named class representatives resides in or 

owns property in California. Norris, a resident of Texas, was 

employed as an able-bodied seaman aboard the Adele Elise while 

it was stationed at Port Hueneme for 571.5 days from June 2013 

to January 2016. Norris was paid a flat daily rate for his 

services, ranging from $140 to $350 per day. Kwaw, a resident of 

Ohio, was employed as an able-bodied seaman aboard the Adele 

Elise while it was stationed at Port Hueneme for 580.5 days 

between July 2013 and August 2015. He was paid a flat daily 

rate for his services, ranging between $265 to $350 per day. 

Musgrove, a resident of Mississippi, was employed as an engineer 

aboard the Adele Elise while it was stationed at Port Hueneme 

for 471.5 days between August 2013 and February 2016. He was 

paid a flat daily rate for his services, ranging between $310 to 

$750 per day. The employment of each class representative was 

terminated only because of a reduction in force. The crew 

members’ wage and hour claims were made after their 

employment was terminated.

The crew members who were employed as able bodied 

seamen typically worked a “hitch” of 42 days on and 21 days off. 

Those employed as engineers worked 21 days on and 21 days off. 

Each employee would travel by air from the airport closest to the 

crew member’s home in Texas, Ohio, and Mississippi to Los 

Angeles, where they were shuttled to the vessel in Port 

Hueneme. At the end of their hitch, the employees would be 

shuttled back to the Los Angeles airport and flown back to their

home states. Administrative employees of petitioners, who were 

located in Louisiana, made travel arrangements for the crew

members. 
5

Once they arrived at the vessel, the crew members were not 

permitted to leave the vessel without permission for the 

remainder of their hitch. Occasionally, they were asked to 

disembark when the vessel was in port, to run errands or pick up 

supplies. They worked at least 12 hours per day each day of their 

hitch. The job duties of crew members who were employed as 

deckhands and able-bodied seamen included handling tow and 

mooring lines, securing the vessel to docks and wharves, 

assisting in loading and unloading supplies, equipment and 

cargo, assisting with pumping water and fuel, cleaning the vessel 

and lifeboats, standing lookout, food preparation and cleaning the 

galley, repairing machinery and equipment, and performing 

other maintenance tasks such as painting, sanding, chipping and 

scraping the vessel.

Other crew members were employed as engineers. These 

employees’ job duties included general engine maintenance, 

changing the engine oil, servicing the engine, pumping mud and 

chemicals off the vessel on the platforms, receiving fuel for the 

vessel and fueling the vessel on the platforms. 

While stationed at Port Hueneme, the Adele Elise would 

travel through the Santa Barbara Channel to deliver supplies to, 

and pick up refuse from four oil platforms. The vessel left from, 

and returned to the same port; it did not travel to other states. 

Travel time from port to the first platform was 

approximately 7 hours. After servicing the first platform, the 

vessel would travel to the second, third and fourth platforms and 

then back to Port Hueneme. The journey from the fourth 

platform to Port Hueneme typically took about 8 hours. The 

entire round trip lasted about 24 hours.
6

The port of Port Hueneme is located within the State of 

California while the oil platforms are located outside the state. 

On its route to and from the platforms, the Adele Elise sailed 

both inside and outside of California’s state boundaries. The 

parties dispute how much time the Adele Elise spent outside the 

state. It is undisputed, however, that between March 2011 and 

October 2017, the Adele Elise docked exclusively at Port 

Hueneme, California.

Discussion

Conflict of Laws

Petitioners contend summary judgment should have been 

granted because Louisiana, rather than California law, governs

their employment relationship with the crew members. The crew 

members contend California law governs because they performed 

most of their work within the State of California. We agree with 

petitioners.

As our Supreme Court explained in Tidewater Marine 

Western, Inc. v. Bradshaw (1996) 14 Cal.4th 557 (Tidewater), 

federal law defines California’s territorial boundaries more 

narrowly than does California state law. Under California’s state 

law definition of its own boundaries, “the entire Santa Barbara 

Channel is within the state.” (Id. at p. 564.) Under federal law, 

“the central portion of the Santa Barbara Channel is not within 

the state.” (Ibid.) “In defining California’s federal law 

boundaries, Congress did not, however, suggest that California 

lacked power to regulate conduct outside those boundaries and 

within broader state law boundaries.” (Ibid.) To the contrary, 

“California employment laws implicitly extend to employment 

occurring within California’s state law boundaries, including all 

of the Santa Barbara Channel,” unless “the operation of federal 
7

law were at issue, as for example if federal law conflicted with 

state law.” (Id at p. 565.) 

To determine whether California law conflicts with 

Louisiana law, we apply a governmental interest analysis. 

(Sullivan v. Oracle Corp. (2011) 51 Cal.4th 1191, 1202

(Sullivan).) “‘First, the court determines whether the relevant 

law of each of the potentially affected jurisdictions with regard to 

the particular issue in question is the same or different. Second, 

if there is a difference, the court examines each jurisdiction’s 

interest in the application of its own law under the circumstances 

of the particular case to determine whether a true conflict exists. 

Third, if the court finds that there is a true conflict, it carefully 

evaluates and compares the nature and strength of the interest of 

each jurisdiction in the application of its own law “to determine 

which state’s interest would be more impaired if its policy were 

subordinated to the policy of the other state” [citation], and then

ultimately applies “the law of the state whose interest would be 

the more impaired if its law were not applied.”’ [Citations.]” (Id.

at pp. 1202–1203. See also Chen v. Los Angeles Truck Centers, 

LLC (2019) 7 Cal.5th 862, 867-868.)

First, California law differs from Louisiana law. California 

requires the payment of overtime compensation at a rate based 

on the number of hours worked, consecutive days worked and the 

employee’s regular hourly wage. (Lab. Code, § 510, subd. (a).) 

“The right to overtime under California law is unaffected by 

contract. [Citations.]” (Sullivan, supra, 51 Cal.4th at p. 1202.)

California also requires that employees receive meal and rest 

periods (Lab. Code, § 512, subd. (a)), and itemized wage 

statements. (Lab. Code, § 226.) Louisiana has no specific laws 

addressing overtime compensation or other similar terms of 
8

employment, relying instead on the FLSA and federal maritime 

law. The FLSA exempts seamen, like real parties, from overtime 

compensation. (29 U.S.C. § 213(b)(6).)

Second, after considering “‘each jurisdiction’s interest in 

the application of its own law under the circumstances of the 

particular case,’” we conclude that a “true conflict exists” between 

the two regulatory schemes. (Sullivan, supra, 51 Cal.4th at p. 

1202.) California has an interest in “applying its overtime law to 

all nonexempt workers, and all work performed, within its 

borders. [Citations.] California’s interests, as this court has 

identified them, are in protecting health and safety, expanding 

the labor market, and preventing the evils associated with 

overwork.” (Id. at pp. 1203-1204.) Louisiana defers to the federal 

FLSA, which similarly promotes the federal government’s 

interest in maintaining “the minimum standard of living 

necessary for health, efficiency and general well-being of 

workers . . . .” (29 U.S.C. § 202(a); Barrentine v. Arkansas-Best 

Freight System, Inc. (1981) 450 U.S. 728, 739.) Unlike 

California’s Labor Code, however, the FLSA expressly exempts 

from its provisions, “any employee employed as a seaman.” (29 

U.S.C. § 213(b)(6).)

In both Sullivan and Tidewater, our Supreme Court held 

there was no “true conflict” between California’s overtime law 

and a state or federal law that left overtime unregulated. In each 

of those cases, however, the employees performed work inside 

California and either resided here (Tidewater) or worked for a 

California employer and periodically came into this state to 

perform work. (Sullivan.) Here, the employees reside outside the 

State and work for Louisiana-based employers. Although they 

perform some of their work inside California’s territorial waters, 
9

they have no other significant contact with the State. In 

addition, their employment relationships were formed in 

Louisiana and all management and administrative functions are 

performed there. Under the circumstances of this particular 

case, we conclude Sullivan and Tidewater are distinguishable 

and that a “true conflict” exists between California and Louisiana 

law.

Sullivan and Tidewater establish that California has strong 

interests in regulating the working conditions of non-residents

who work for California employers within the State’s territorial 

boundaries (Sullivan), and of residents who work both within and 

outside those boundaries. (Tidwater.) As the court explained in 

Tidewater, “If an employee resides in California, receives pay in 

California, and works exclusively, or principally, in California, 

then that employee is a ‘wage earner of California’ and 

presumptively enjoys the protection of [California law].” 

(Tidewater, supra, 14 Cal.4th at p. 578.) 

Here, however, the crew members are not residents of 

California and they perform work both within the boundaries of 

the State and outside those boundaries. Unlike the employees at 

issue in either Sullivan or Tidewater, the crew members do not 

leave the vessel, even when it is docked at a California port, 

except under very limited circumstances. They have no 

significant interaction with the State of California even as they 

perform work on a vessel that is docked or sailing within the 

state’s territorial boundaries. After finishing their “hitch,” the 

crew members almost immediately leave the state, again without 

interacting in any meaningful way with its residents, economy, or 

civic life.
10

While the work performed by the crew members was 

performed within the territorial boundaries of California, it was 

performed on a boat at sea. Every other aspect of their 

employment relationship with petitioners occurred in Louisiana. 

Petitioners’ headquarters are located in Louisiana. The crew 

members traveled to Louisiana to apply for their jobs, to execute 

numerous employment-related documents and to attend training 

and orientation. From their offices in Louisiana, petitioners 

made arrangements for the crew members to travel between their 

respective homes and the vessel in California. Other 

administrative functions, including payroll and benefits, were 

also performed in Louisiana. 

In these circumstances, we conclude Louisiana’s interest in 

the application of its laws is stronger than California’s. The 

employment relationships here were formed in Louisiana, 

between Louisiana-based employers and non-resident employees 

who traveled to that state to apply for, and accept employment. 

They received training and orientation in Louisiana and the 

administrative aspects of their employment were performed in 

that state. California’s interests are weaker because, although 

the crew members performed some of their work in this state, 

neither the employees nor the employers are residents or 

taxpayers of this state.

As a consequence, we conclude Louisiana law governs the 

employment relationship at issue here, rather than California 

law. The trial court erred in concluding petitioners failed to 

demonstrate that Louisiana law should apply. 
11

Preemption

Petitioners urge us to conclude in addition that the federal 

FLSA preempts California’s wage and hour regulations with 

respect to the crew members. Because we conclude that 

California law does not apply to the crew members, we need not 

reach the question of whether California law is also preempted by 

the federal statute. But we note that our Supreme Court has 

held that the FLSA did not preempt California’s state regulation 

of seamen’s overtime pay. (Tidewater, supra, 14 Cal.4th at pp. 

567-568 [“we find no evidence that Congress intended the FLSA’s 

seamen exemption to preempt state law”].) We are bound by our 

Supreme Court’s holding on this issue. (Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. 

Superior Court (1962) 57 Cal.2d 450, 455-456.) 

Disposition

The petition for writ of mandate is granted. The trial court 

is ordered to vacate its order of May 23, 2019 denying the motion 

for summary judgment and to enter a new order granting 

summary judgment. The order to show cause is discharged and 

the stay heretofore issued is dissolved. Petitioners shall recover 

their costs.

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION.

YEGAN, Acting P. J.

We concur:

PERREN, J. TANGEMAN, J.
Vincent J. O'Neil, Jr., Judge

Superior Court County of Ventura

______________________________

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld and Gregory W. 

Knopp; Phelps Dunbar and Jolee Land; and David M. Korn for 

Petitioners.

No appearance for Respondent.

Rothschild & Alwill and Kristi D. Rothschild for Real 

Parties in Interest.