N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C U IT
FR ANK GALLAR

DO, a n individual on be ha lf of him se lf, a

nd on be ha lf of a ll pe rsons simila

rly situa te d, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt,
v. AIG DOM ESTIC C L AIM S, INC ., a De la ware c o rporation; C HAR TIS C LAIM S, INC
. , a De la

ware c orporation, De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 13-56358 D.C . No. 8:12-c v-01107-C JC -AN
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 C orm a c J. C arne y , Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Oc tobe r 22, 2015 * * Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia 

# FIL ED OCT 28 2015 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. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).B e fore : PREGER SON and TR OTT, C irc uit Judge s a nd STAFFOR

D, * ** Se nior Distric t Judge
. Appe lla nt Fra nk Ga lla rdo (“ Ga lla

rdo” ) a ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s gra nt of
sum m ary judgm e nt in fa

vor of a ppe lle e AIG Dom e stic C la im s (“ A IG C la im s” ). 1 Spe c ific a lly , Ga l la

rdo a ppe a ls (1) the distric t c ourt’ s finding tha t Ga lla rdo— a he aring re pre se ntative for AIG C la im s— wa s prope rly

c la ssifie d a s a

n e x e m pt
a dm inistra

tive e m ploy e e ; a nd (2) the distric t

c o urt’ s re fusa l to a dm it into e v ide nc e Ga lla rdo’ s e xpe rt re port. W e have jurisdic tion pursua nt to 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a

nd
we a ffirm
. I. G allar do Is An E xe m pt Adm i nistr ative E m ploy e e W e re vie w gra

nts of sum

m ary judgm e nt de novo. Bothe ll v . Phase Me tric s, Inc
. , 299 F.3d 1120, 1124 (9th C ir. 2002). W hat Ga lla rdo did a s a

n e m ploy e e is a que stion of fa c t we re vie w for c le ar e rror, but whe the r Ga lla rdo’ s a c tivitie s e xe m pte d him from ove rtim e be ne fits is a

que stion of la

wwe re vie w de novo. Id. W e m ust de te rm ine if the e vide nc e , vie we d in the light m ost fa vora ble to the
nonm o ving pa

rty , ra ise s a

ny ge nuine issue s of m ate ria l fa c t. Id. at 1124. He re , the

*** The Honora

ble W illia m H. Sta fford, Jr., Se nior Distric t Judge for the U.S. Distric t C ourt for the Northe rn Distric t of Florida , sitting by de signa tion. 1 AIG Dom e s tic C la im s, Inc ., a subsidia ry of Am e ric an Inte rnationa l Group, c ha nge d its c o rporate nam e to C ha rtis in July

2009. - 2 -distric t c o urt prope rly found tha

t the re we re no ge nuine issue s of m ate ria l fa c t, nor did the c ourt e rr in holding tha t AIG C la im s ha d e sta

blishe d a s a

m atte r of la

w tha t Ga lla rdo wa s prope rly

c la ssifie d a s an e x e m

p t a dm inistra

tive e m ploy e e . Ga lla rdo’ s job dutie s m e e t a ll five e l e m e nts re quire d to sa tisfy the te st for
a dm inistra

tive e xe m ption. Se e C

ampbe ll v . Pric e w ate rhouse C oope rs, LLP , 642 F.3d 820, 831 (9th C ir. 2011) (c iting C a l. C ode R e gs. tit. 8, § 11040(1)(A)(2) (c odifie d ve rsion of W a ge Orde r No. 4-2001, § (1)(A)(2))). 2 First, Ga l la rdo pe rform e d work dire c tly

re late d to AIG’ s m a

na ge m e n t polic ie s or busine ss ope ra t ions, i.e
. , his work wa s qua lita tive l y a dm inistra

tive and of substa

ntia l im porta nc e to the c om

pa ny . S e e § 11040(1)(A)(2)(a )(I); Harris , 53 C a l. 4th a t 181–82. He re , Ga lla

rdo re pre s e nte d AIG C l a im s in he arings be fore the W orke rs’ C om pe nsation Appe a ls B oa

rd; c onduc te d de positions of witne sse s, phy sic ia ns, a nd worke rs; provide d re c om

m e ndations re ga

rding the va l ue of c la im s, whic h AIG C la im s ge ne ra lly

followe d; a

nd ne gotia

te d se ttle m e nts. Se eHarris 53 C a l. 4th a t 189.

2 W a ge Orde r 4-2001 should be unde rstood in light of FLSA re g u lations e ffe c tive a s of the date of the orde r: 29 C .F.R . Se c tions 541.201–205, 541.207–208, 541.210, a

nd 541.215. Harris v . Supe r ior C ourt , 53 C a l. 4th 170, 180 (2011). Howe ve r, m ore re c e nt re gula tions a re a lso instruc tive be c a

use ne we r re gula tions “we re inte nde d to be c onsiste nt with the old re gula

t ions.” Id. at 189 n.8. - 3 -Se c ond, Ga lla rdo c u stom arily

and re gula

rly e xe rc ise d disc re tion a

nd inde pe nde nt judgm e n t. Se e § 11040(1)(A)(2)(b). For e a c h m atte r, Ga lla rdo pe rsona lly

de c ide d how be st to pre se nt the fa c ts a nd to fra m e the issue s ; how be st to pre se nt a

de fe nse ; an d how be st to re spond to que stions pose d by the judge during he arings. He inde pe n de ntly re vie we d the c a se file to de te rm ine the ty pe of injury at issue and wha

t a dm ission of fa c t s he m ight wa nt to solic it from

the witne s s or injure d pa

rty during depositions. He

use d pre form atte d te m

plate s in taking depositions a

nd he wa s give n a

uthority for se ttle m e nt ra

nge s, but noneof the s e dim inishe s his inde

pe nde nt judgm e nt or disc re tion. Se e 29 C .F.R . § 541.207(e )(1) (2000)
. Third, Ga l la

rdo did spe c ia liz e d

work “ unde r only

ge ne ra l supe rvision.” Se e § 11040(1)(A)(2)(d). Although Ga lla rdo c onte nds tha

t he ne e de d a

pprova l for virtua l ly e ve ry de c i sion he m a de , the undispuste d fa c ts show tha t Ga lla rdo spe nt
m ost of his time working inde pe nde n tly with little

da y -to-da y ove rsight. Ove ra ll, he spe n t the m a

jority of his tim e c onduc ting inde pe nde nt c a se ana ly sis, m a k ing
re c o m m e ndations to his supe

riors, or a ppe aring a lone at

se ttle m e nt c onfe re n c e s, tria l s, a nd a rbitration he arings. He de c ide d how to pre se nt issue s he argue d at he arings, how to fra

m e de positions, a

nd how be st to re a c h se ttle m e nt within the
a uthority give n to him . Although Galla rdo wa s re q

uire d to re port to a

c la im s
- 4 -a djuste r, the a djuste r did not dic tate how Ga lla rdo wa s to c onduc t him se lf during he arings. The m a

j ority of Ga lla rdo’ s work provide d signific ant fre e d om and latitude to a c t. Ga lla rdo doe s not c o nte s t the re m a ining two e l e m e nts of thea dm inistra tive te st. Se e §§ 11040(1)(A)(2)(f), (g). B e c a use the re are no ge nuine issue s of
m ate ria l fa c t a s to a

ny of the e le m e nts re ga

rding thea dm inistra

tive e xe m ption, we
a ffirm the distric t c o urt’ s grant of sum m ary judgm e nt to AIG C la im s. II. T he Distr ic t Cour t Did Not Abuse Its Disc r e tion in E xc l uding G allar do’s E xpe r t Re por t The distric t c ourt’ s de c ision re ga rding the a d

m issibility

of e xpe rt te stim ony is re vie we d for a

n a buse of disc re tion. Se e Unite d State s v . Se p ulv e da-Barraza , 645 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th C ir. 2011). W e use a two-ste p inquiry t o de te rm i ne if
suc h an a buse ha s oc c urre d : (1) we de te rm ine de novo if thedistric t c ourt use d the
c orre c t le ga l rule whe n e xc l uding the e xpe rt te stim ony ; a n d (2) if so, whe the r the
c ourt’ s a p plic at i on of the le g a l sta nda rd wa s “ illogic a l , im

p la usible , or without support in infere nc e s tha

t m ay be drawn from

fa c t s in the re c ord.” U

nite d State

s v . Re dlightning , 624 F.3d 1090, 1110 (9th C i r. 2010). He re , the distric t c ourt ide ntifie d the c orre c t le ga l sta n da rd for de te rm ining whe the r an e xpe rt’ s te stim ony is a dm issible , i.e ., Fe d. R
. Evid. 702. In addition,
we c annot sa

y tha t the distric t

c ourt’ s a p plic at ion of this sta

nda rd wa s without - 5 -support from the fa c ts in there c ord. The undispute d fa c ts do not re quire e xpe rt
ana ly sis. M ore ove r, the e xp e rt provide d a ba re le g a l c o nc lusion tha

t wa s prope rly
e xc lude d by

the distric t c ourt. Se e Aguilar v . Int’l Longshoreme n’s Union Loc al N o. 10 , 966 F.2d 443, 447 (9th C ir. 1992). The distric t c ourt ha d suffic ie nt support from the re c o rd to dra

w the infe re nc e tha

t the e xpe rt te stim o ny

wa s not he lpful to the t rie r of fa c t . Thus, thedistric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in e xc luding the e xpe rt te s tim ony . AFFIRM E D

- 6 -