N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
W ENDI B ER

N DT, e t a l., Plaintiffs - Appe lla nts,
v. C ITY OF LOS ANGELES, De fe nda

nt - Appe lle e . No. 13-56142 D.C . No. 2:11-c v-08579-GAFAJW
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 Gary A. Fe e ss, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d July

9, 2015 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : W . FLETC HER , PAEZ, a nd B ER ZON, C irc uit Judge s. The pla intiffs (“ B e rndt” or “ the Offic e rs” ) a ppe a l the distric t c ourt’ s gra nt of
sum m ary judgm e nt to the C ity of Los Ange le s dismissing B e rndt’ s c la im s tha t the C ity viola te d the Fa ir La

bor Sta nda rds Ac t (FLSA). W e a ffirm
. 

# FIL E D
JUL 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 . 36-3.1. The FLSA, a s inte rpre te d by De pa rtm e nt of La

b or (DOL) re gula

tions, pe rm its theC ity ’ s pra c tic e of c o m pe nsating its em

ploy e e s ’ “ ga

p tim e ” with
c om pe nsatory tim e off (C TO). The re gula

tions e xpre ssly

c l a ssify C TO “ e arne d a

nd a c c rue d

by an e m ploy e e for e m ploy m e nt in e xc e ss of a

nonsta tutory (that is, non-FLSA) re q

uire m e nt” a s

“ othe r” C TO not subje c t to thesta tutory ove rtim e rate . 29 C .F.R . § 553.28. “ For
e xam ple , a c olle c tive ba

rga ining a g re e m e nt m ay

provide tha

t c om pe n satory tim e be grante d to e m

ploy e e s for hours worke d in e x c e s s of 8 in a da y . . . .” § 553.28(a) The C ity ’ s use of C TO to c o m pe nsate “ ga

p tim e ” is spe c ific a lly

provide d for by the c olle c tive ba

rga ining a gre e m e nt unde r whic h the Offic e rs a re e m ploy e d. The ir
c ha lle nge to the C ity ’ s use of C TO for ga p tim e the re fore fa ils. 2. The C ity

ha s e sta blishe d tha

t the re is no ge nuine issue of m ate ria l fa c t for tria l by showing tha

t the Offic e rs ha

ve fa ile d to pre s e nt c om

p e te nt e vide nc e of a fa c t tha t the y be ar the burde n of e sta

blishing. C

e lote x C orp. v . C atre tt , 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). Tha

t fa c t is whe the r the Offic e rs pe rform e d work for whic h the y we re not prope rly

c o m pe nsate d. Se e Broc k

v . Se to , 790 F.2d 1446, 1447–48 (9th C ir. 1986) (“ An e m

ploy e e se e king to re c ove r unpa id m i nim um wa ge s or ove rtim e unde r the FLSA ‘ ha s the burde n of proving tha t he pe rform e d work for whic h he

2wa s not prope rly c om pe n sate d
. ’ ” (quoting Ande rson v . Mt. C le me ns Potte r

y C o ., 328 U.S. 680, 687 (1946)). Unde r the FLSA, e m

ploy e e s “ in la

w e nforc e m e n t a c tivitie s” are e xe m pt from the sta tute ’ s 40-hour workwe e k re quire m e n t. 29 U.S.C
. § 207(k). Thec rite ria gove rning whic h e m

ploy e e s qua lify

for this e xe m

ption a re la i d out in DOL
re gula tions. Se e 29 C
. F.R . § 553.211(a). The C ity be ars the burde n of proving tha t the O ffic e rs pe rform e d la w e nforc e m e nt a c tivitie s. Se e C le v e land v . C

ity of L.A. , 420 F.3d 981, 988 (9th C ir. 2005). The C ity ha s e sta blishe d tha

t its offic e rs ge n e ra lly fa ll within the 207(k)
e xe m ption, a s provide d for in them e m oran dum of unde rsta nding (“ M OU” ) be twe e n the C ity

and the Offic e rs’ union. TheM OU give s rise to the infe re nc e tha t the C ity ’ s polic e offic e rs, through the ir c olle c tive ba rga ining repre se ntative , re c o gniz e tha

t the y m e e t the 207(k) c rite ria . W ith one e xc e ption — the de c la ration by pla intiff Alfre do Flore s — B e rndt’ s e vide nc e doe s not provide any fa c ts sugge s ting tha

t the Offic e rs’ work c onsiste d of non-la w-e nforc e m e nt a c tivitie s. The Flore s de c la

ration sta te s tha t Flore s ’ s “pe a c e offic e r powe rs we re suspe n de d” and tha

t he “ wa s re quire d to work in a n a d m inistra t ive role .” The
re gula tory c rite ria for the 207(k) e xe m

ption do not, howe

ve r, foc u s on thework the individual offic e r is a c t

ua lly pe rform ing, but, inste a d, on the offic e r’ s tra i ning,

3a ssignm e nt to a “ body of offic e rs” with la

w e nforc e m e nt a

ut hority , a n d e ndowm e nt with the“ powe r to a

rre st.” 29 C .F.R
. § 553.211(a). Flore s’ s c onc lusory de c la ration doe s not a ddre ss a

ny of the se spe c ific c rite ria . M ore o v e r, Flore s did not sta te tha t he worke d ove rtim e during thepe riod in whic h his pe a c e offic e r powe rs we re suspe n de d. The de c la

ration the re fore doe s not ra ise a dispute d issue of fa c t
re ga rding whe the r Flore s worke d ove rtim e while in a non-e xe m

pt sta tus, a nd
c onse q ue ntly wa s due a dditional c om

pe nsation. As B e rndt ha s not provide d a ny othe r doc um e n tation in support of he r c onte ntion tha

t the Offic e rs worke d ove rtim e while ina ppropria te ly c la ssifie d unde r § 207(k), sheha s not c re ate d a “ ge nuine issue of m ate ria l fa c t ” on the
c om pe nsation que stion. Se e N issan Fire & Marine

Ins. C o. v . Fritz C

ompanie s , 210 F.3d 1099, 1102–03 (9th C ir. 2000). Thedistric t c o urt’ s grant of sum

m ary judgm e nt to theC ity wa s thus a ppropria te . 3. B e rndt’ s c l a im s unde r state la w a re wa ive d due to insuffic ie nt a rgum e nt. B e rndt m ake s two c ursory sta te la w a rgum e nts in a

singlepa ra gra p h in he r ope ning brie f. First, B e rndt a sse rts tha t the C ity ’ s C TO pra c tic e viola te s the princ iple tha

t wa ge s a re due on pa

y da y . B ut the only

a uthority B e rndt c ite s for this princ iple disc usse s ge ne ra lly whe n a c a use of a c tion for unpaid wa ge s a c c rue s, not whe n C TO m ay

be pa id. Se e C

uadra v . Millan , 17 C a l. 4th 855, 859 (1998). As

4B e rndt ha s done “ littlem ore tha n c ite ” a c a s e without c l e ar a

p plic ation to the insta nt c a se , “ we are le ft to gue ss pre c ise ly what [B e rndt] m e ant to a rgue ,” and

“ m ay not c onside r the q

u e stion.” San Die

go Unifie d Port Dist. v. Gianturc o , 651 F.2d 1306, 1319 n.36 (9th C i r. 1981). Sim ila rly , B e rndt’ s se c ond sta

te la w c la im , that the C ity m ay not useC TO a s c om

pe nsation unle ss it is “ a ffirm ative ly
a uthoriz e d by

la w , ” is not supporte d by

any a uthority . Suc h a

“ ba re a sse rtion” is insuffic ie nt to pre se nt the issue for m e aningful a ppe l late re vie w. G re e nw ood v
. F.A.A. , 28 F.3d 971, 977 (9th C ir. 1994). Eve n if B e rndt’ s sta

te la w a rgum e nts we re not wa ive d, the y would fa il on the m e rits. C a lifornia ’ s “ hom e rule ” doc trine holds tha t the c om pe nsat ion of public
e m ploy e e s is ge ne ra lly

a m atte r of loc a l c o nc e rn, a nd tha t m ost sta te wa ge la

ws the re fore do not a

pply to the e m ploy e e s of c h arte r c itie s . S e e , e .g. , C urc ini v . C

nty . of Alame da , 164 C a l. App. 4th 629, 643 (2008); Dimon v . C nty . of Los Ange le

s , 166 C a l. App. 4th 1276 (2008) (de c l ining to a pply sta te m e a l pe riod la

ws to c ounty probat ion offic e rs); c

f . Sonoma C

nty . Org. of Pub. Emps. v . C nty . of Sonoma , 23 C a l. 3d 296, 317 (1979). Sta te la w m ay a pply to c h arte r c itie s whe n

the la w de a ls with m atte rs of “ sta

te w ide c onc e rn.” State

Bldg. &C

onst. Trade

s C o unc i l of C

al., AFL-C IO v . C ity of Vista , 54 C a l. 4th 547, 556 (2012). B ut B e rndt ha s not de m onstra

te d tha t the pre se nt c a se im

plic ate s a m atte r of sta

te w ide c onc e rn.
5J

e rnagin v . C

ity of L.A. , No. B 241411, 2013 W L 2336342, a

t *1 (C a l. C t. App. M ay 29, 2013), whic h B e rndt ra ise d for the first tim e at ora l a rgum e n t , did not
c onc e rn m

unic i p a l la

w e nforc e m e n t e m

ploy e e s or the use of C TO, a nd so doe s not support a pplic ation of thesta

te w ide c onc e rn e xc e ption he re . AFFIRM E D
.

6