N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
EVE NER C IA GILLINGS; PATRIC E HAYES; R

HANDI WALTER S; PHILLIP B OND, individually , a

nd on be ha l f of a l l othe rs sim ila

rly situa te d, Plaintiffs - Appe lla nts,
v. TIM E WAR

NER C AB LE LLC ; TIM E W AR NER C AB LE, INC .; TIM E W AR NER NEW YOR K C AB LE, De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 12-55766 D.C . No. 2:10-c v-05565-AG-R NB
M EM O R 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 Andre w J. Guilford, District Judge , Pre siding Argue d an d Subm i tte d De c e m be r 6, 2013 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : PREGER SON, B E R ZON, a nd C HR ISTEN, C irc u it Judge s. Eve Ne rc i a

Gillings, Phillip B ond, Pa tric e Ha y e s, a nd R h an di W a l te rs (toge the r, “ e m

ploy e e s” ) a

ppe a l the distric t c ourt’ s gra nt of sum m ary judgm e nt for 

# FIL ED
JUL 21 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, 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 9th C ir. R . 36-3.Tim e W arne r C a ble LLC a

nd Tim e W arne r NY C a

ble LLC (toge the r, “ Tim e W arne r” ) on the e m

ploy e e s’ c la im s tha

t Tim e W a

rne r’ s c om

pe nsat ion polic ie s viola te d va rious provisions of the

C a lifornia

La bor C ode
. W e re ve rse in pa rt,
a ffirm in pa rt, a nd re m and. 1. Drawing a ll infe re nc e s in fa vor of the non-m oving pa rty , a s we m

ust on a
m otion for sum

m a ry judgm e nt, se e

, e .g. , Hay e

s v . C n ty . of San Die

go , 736 F.3d 1223, 1228 (9th C ir. 2013), there c ord indic ate s tha t the e m ploy e e s e a c h pe rform e d
a s m uc h a s six m inute s of unc om pe nsate d work a

t the be ginning of e ve ry

shift,
a c c e ssing the ir c om

pute rs a nd logging into Tim

e W arne r’ s tim e ke e p ing sy s te m . The distric t c ourt he ld tha t a lle ge dly

unc om pe n sate d tim e deminimis unde r Lindow
v . Unite d State s , 738 F.2d 1057, 1062–63 (9th C ir. 1984). A. The e m

ploy e e s a rgue tha t the deminimis doc trine doe s not a pply to
c la im s of unpa id wa ge s unde r C a lifornia ’ s La bor C ode
. 1 Not so. The C a lifornia Supre m e C ourt ha s ne ve r rule d on the a p plic a bility of the de minimis doc trine to C a l ifornia wa ge c la im s. Thus we m ust pre dic t how it would

1 Tim e W arne r c onte nds tha t the e m ploy e e s forfe ite d this a

rgum e nt by fa iling to a sse rt it be fore the distric t c ourt. Although we ty pic a l ly re fuse to pa ss on c la im s ra ise d for the first tim e on a ppe a l, we will do so, in our disc re t ion, whe re , a s he re , “ the issue is pure ly

one of la w, doe s not a ffe c t or re ly upon the fa c t ua l re c ord de ve lope d by

the pa rtie s, a nd will not pre

j udic e the pa

rty a ga inst whom it is ra ise d.” D re am Palac e v . C nty . of Maric opa , 384 F.3d 990, 1005 (9th C ir. 2003) (inte rna l quota

t ion m a rks om itte d). 2answe r the que stion, “ ‘ follow[ing] the de c i sion of thesta t e ’ s inte rm e diate a

ppe lla te
c ourts’ ” a bse nt “ ‘ c onvinc ing e v ide n c e tha t the sta te supre m e c ourt would de c ide the i ssue diffe re n tly .’ ” Ve star De v . II, LLC

v . Ge n. Dy namic

s C orp. , 249 F.3d 958, 960 (9th C i r. 2001) (quoting Le w is v . Te l. Emps. C r e dit Union , 87 F.3d 1537, 1545 (9th C ir. 1996)). The C a lifornia C ourt of Appe a l ha s a

p plie d the fe de ra l d

e minimis sta

nda rd to a sta te wa ge c l a im

onc e , se e Gome

z v . Linc a re

, Inc
. , 173 C a l
. App. 4th 508, 527 (C a l. C t. App. 2009); ha s a ssum e d , in a n othe r c a se , tha

t it wa s
a pplic a ble , se e LoJ

a c k C orp. v . Supe rior C

ourt , No. B 219647, 2010 W L 1137044,
at *8 (C a l. C t. App. M ar. 26, 2010) (unpublishe d); 2 and ha s c ha ra c te riz e d the
a pplic a bility of tha t doc trine , in still a

n othe r c a se , a s a

n ope n que stion, se e Bustamante

v . Te amoneEmp’t Spe c ialists, LLC , No. B 222136, 2011 W

L 1844628,
at *10 (C a l. C t. App. M ay 7, 2011) (unpublishe d). W e have found no C ourt of Appe a l c a se re fusing to a pply the deminimis sta

nda rd to a wa ge c la im unde r C a lifornia la w. Sim ila rly , Se c tion 47.2.1 of the

Enforc e m e nt Polic ie s a

nd Inte rpre tations M an ua l issue d by

C a lifornia ’ s Division of La bor Sta nda rds Enforc e m e n t (“ DLSE” )
e ndorse s the a

pplic a bility of the fe de ra l deminimis sta nda rd. C a lifornia

c ourts do

2 Whe n a pply ing sta

te la w, “ we m ay

c onside r unpublishe d sta te de c isions, e ve n though suc h opinions ha ve no pre c e de ntia l va lue .” Emp’rs Ins. of W ausau v . Granite State Ins. C o. , 330 F.3d 1214, 1220 n.8 (9th C ir. 2003). 3not de fe r to the DLSE M anua l, se e Martine z v . C ombs , 231 P.3d 259, 268 n.15 (C a l. 2010), but do c o nside r its pe rsua sive va lue , se e Se e ’s C a ndy Shops, Inc . v . Supe rior C

ourt , 210 C a l. App. 4th 889, 902–03 (C a l. C t. App. 2012) (c olle c ting
c a se s). He re , we use it a s one m ore datum on the proba

ble c onte nt of a

pplic a ble C a lifornia la w, one tha

t points in the sam e dire c t ion a s the de c isions of the C a lifornia C ourt of Appe a l tha

t we m ust follow a

bse nt “ c onvinc ing da

ta ” that the C a lifornia Supre m e C o urt would de c ide the issue diffe re ntly
. Ve star De v . , 249 F.3d at 960. The e m ploy e e s obje c t tha

t C a lifornia

offe rs gre ate r prote c tion to e m ploy e e s tha n fe de ra l wa ge and hours prote c tions, c iting Morillion v . Roy al Pac k ing C o. , 995 P.2d 139, 140–41 (C a l. 2000). B ut tha t c a se re je c te d the va l ue of fe de ra l c a se s inte rpre ting thePorta l-to-Porta l Ac t, 29 U.S.C . §§ 251–262, which ha s no pa ra lle l in C a lifornia

la w. Morillion , 995 P.2d a t 148. Morillion e sta

blishe s no ba

r a ga inst
re lia nc e on pe rsua sive fe de ra l c a se la w whe re C a lifornia

and fe de ra l la

ware pa ra lle l. Inde e d , Morillion itse lf re lie d, in pa rt, on a fe de ra l c a se de fining the
m e aning of “ suffe r or pe rm it to work”in 29 U.S.C . § 203(g) to c onstrue a ne arly ide n tic a l phra se in a

n orde r issue d by

a C a lifornia

re gula t ory a ge n c y . Se e id. at 145 (c iting Forre

ste r v . Roth’s IGA Foodline r , Inc
. , 646 F.2d 413, 414 (9th C ir. 1981)).
4B e c a

use “ the re is no c onvinc ing e vide nc e tha t the [C a lifornia

Supre m e C ourt] would de c ide diffe re ntly ,” we m u st follow Gome

z in a pply ing the fe d e ra l de minimis doc trine to the e m ploy e e s’ c la im s. Ve

star De v . , 249 F.3d a

t 960. B . Tim e W arne r would be ar the burde n of proving the a p plic a bility of the deminimis doc trine at tria l , se e Rutti v . Lojac k C orp. , 596 F.3d 1046, 1057 n.10 (9th C ir. 2010). W

h e n m oving for sum

m ary judgm e nt on a deminimis the ory , the re fore , Tim e W arne r “ m ust c om e forward with e v ide nc e whic h would e ntitle it to a dire c te d ve rdic t

if the e v ide nc e we nt unc ontrove re d at tria l.” C .A.R. Transp. Brok e rageC o. v . Darde n Re

sts., Inc
. , 213 F.3d 474, 480 (9th C ir. 2000) (inte rna l quota t ion m arks om itte d). Tim e W arne r ha s not c arrie d tha t burde n he re . Although the pla intiffs c om pla in of non-pa

ym e nt for pe riods of time e a c h
ve ry short, tha t c irc um s ta

nc e doe s not justify

a pplic ation of the deminimis doc trine without c onside ra t ion of the two othe r fa c t ors a rtic ulat e d in Lindow a s pe rtine nt to
a pplic ation of the deminimis doc trine in wa ge c a se s. Se e Rutti , 596 F.3d a t 1058; Lindow , 738 F.2d a

t 1062; 29 C .F.R . § 785.47. Apply ing thosetwo fa c tors — “ the pra c tic a l a dm inistra

tive diffic ulty

of
re c o rding the a dditiona l tim e . . . a n d the re gula

rity of the a dditiona l work,” Lindow , 738 F.2d a

t 1063 — we hold tha

t the y m ay , a fte r tria l, outwe i gh the bre v ity of the pe riods of tim e at issue . The e m ploy e e s e nga ge d e a c h da

y in
5a c tivitie s for whic h the y a lle g e dly re c e ive d no c om

pe nsation, na

m e ly , logging onto the i r c o m pute rs a n d ope n ing softwa

re progra m s so tha t the y we re re a dy

to fie ld
c ustom e r c a lls a

t the sta rt of the ir shifts, a s Tim e W arne r polic y re quire d. Tim e W arne r offe rs no e vide nc e whate ve r of the a dm inistra tive diffic ulty of re c ording the t im e it ta

ke s its e m ploy e e s to c om

ple te the ir sta

rt-up se que nc e s. First, the
re c o rd indic ate s som e va

riation in the

tim e it ta ke s e a c h e m

ploy e e , but no e vide nc e
e sta blishe s the diffic ulty

of m onitoring tha

t va riation. Eve n we re it othe rwise , “ it
m ay be possibleto re a s ona

bly de te rm ine or e stim ate the ave ra ge tim e ” it ta k e s e a c h
e m ploy e e to c om

ple te his pre -shift sta

rt-up se que nc e . Rutti , 596 F.3d a t 1059. Se c ond, the re c ord doe s not indic ate tha t e m ploy e e s would e nga ge in pe rsona l
a c tivitie s a fte r the y c l oc k in e a c h m orning, e ve n though they m ay now e nga ge in
suc h a c tivitie s be

fore c loc king in on the ir c o m

pute rs. Tim e W arne r’ s polic y prohibiting persona l a c tivitie s on the c loc k would still a pply if it re c orde d a

nd
c om pe nsate d its e m

ploy e e s for the ir sta

rt up se que nc e s. Third, Lindow ’ s de fe re nc e to the distric t

c o urt’ s fa c tua l findings a s to the a dm inistra tive diffic ulty

of a l te ring its e s ta blishe d tim e k e e p i ng polic y doe s not he lp Tim e W arne r on sum m a ry judgm e nt, whe re it ha s a d va nc e d no e vide n c e to support the diffic ulty it a sse rts. 738 F.2d a

t 1059, 1063.

6W e thus hold im prope r the grant of sum

m ary judgm e nt on theba sis of the de minimis doc trine
. 3 2. The distric t c ourt re

je c te d the e m

ploy e e s’ c la i m

tha t Tim e W arne r’ s polic y of rounding its em

ploy e e s’ tim e to the ne are st qua rte r hour sy ste m atic a lly unde rc om pe n sate d the m , re a soning tha t the polic y

wa s ne utra l on its fa c e and a s
a pplie d. Se e Se e ’s C

andy , 210 C a l . App. 4th a t 903. There c o rd indic ate s , howe v e r, tha

t Tim e W arne r fa ile d to c re dit Gillings a n d B ond with work tha

t the y ha d a c t ua lly pe rform e d. M ore o ve r, e ve n if c onside re d in the a ggre gate , the re c ord
at this point indic ate s tha

t the ne t im

pa c t for a ll four e m

ploy e e s is to pa

y the m for
c onside ra bly fe we r hours tha

n the y a c t ua lly worke d. Sum

m ary judgm e n t

on Gillings’ and B ond’ s c la i m s wa s thus im p rope r, be c a

use Tim e W a

rne r’ s rounding polic y a ppe ars not

to ha ve be e n ne utra l in its e ffe c t , e ithe r on the m or in the

3 W e DENY a s m o o t Tim e W arne r’ s m o tion to strike from the re c o rd on a ppe a l the doc um e n ts on whic h the e m ploy e e s pre m ise d

an a l te rnat ive argum e nt that we have not re a c he d. W e DENY on them e rits Tim e W arne r’ s re q u e st for attorne y ’ s fe e s a

nd c o sts in prep aring its m o tion to strike , be c a use the ir m o tion ra ise d a que stion of first im

p re ssion. S

e e Tonry v . Se c . Ex pe rts, Inc
. , 20 F.3d 967, 973 (9th C i r. 1994), abrogation on othe r grounds re c ognize d by

K ing v . AC & R Adv e rtising , 65 F.3d 764, 768 (9th C ir. 1995). And weDENY the e m ploy e e s’ m otion for a

ttorne y ’ s fe e s a

nd c osts inc urre d in re sponding to Tim e W arne r’ s m otion, whic h wa s not suffic ie ntly without m e rit to justify

suc h sa nc tions. C

f. Se lle r Age nc

y C o u nc i l, Inc . v . K

e nne dy C tr. for Re al Estate

Educ ., Inc
. , 621 F.3d 981, 991 (9th C ir. 2010) . 7a ggre g at e . W e a ffirm , howe ve r, sum m ary judgm e nt a s to the re m a ining two
e m ploy e e s’ rounding c l a im s, a s the y did not lose

any wa ge s due to the polic y . AFFIRM E D IN PART , RE V E RSE D IN PART , and RE M ANDE D. The pa rtie s sha ll be ar the ir own c osts on a ppe a l.

8