N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
R IC K PAR SITTIE,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. SC HNEIDER

LOGISTIC S, INC .; SC HNEIDER

LOGISTIC S TR ANSPOR TATION, INC .; SC HNEIDER

LOGISTIC S TR

ANSLOADING AND DISTRIB U TION, INC .,

De fe nda n ts-Appe lle e s, and C ONNEC T STAFFING, INC .,

De fe nda n t. No. 20-55470 D.C . No. 2:19-c v-03981-M W F-AFM
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 M ic h a e l W . Fitz ge ra ld, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d M ay

14, 2021 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia 

# FIL ED JUN 9 2021 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.B e fore : B ER ZON a nd B YB E E, C irc uit Judge s, a nd C A RDONE, ** Distric t Judge
. Partia l Disse nt by

Judge B YB EE R ic k Parsittie a

ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s orde r dism issing his puta tive wa ge and-hour c la ss a c tion a ga inst his form e r e m ploy e r, Sc hne ide r Logistic s, Inc ., without le ave to a

m e nd. The distric t c ourt ha d jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C
. § 1332, a nd we have a

ppe lla te jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re vie w the distric t c o urt’ s gra

nt of a m otion to dism

iss unde r Fe de ra l R

ule of C i vil Proc e dure 12(b)(6) de novo a

nd its de c ision to strike

unde r R ule 12(f) for a

buse of disc re tion. Se e C urtis v . Irw in Indus., Inc
. , 913 F.3d 1146, 1151 (9th C ir. 2019); W hittle stone , Inc
. v . Handi-C

raft C o. , 618 F.3d 970, 973 (9th C ir. 2010). W e a ffirm in pa rt,
re ve rse in pa

rt, a nd re m and. 1. The distric t c ourt a b use d its disc re tion by striking Pa rsittie ’ s puta

t ive c la ss de finition without le ave to a m e nd. “ [D] ism issa l with pre j udic e c onstitute s a

n a buse o f disc re tion whe re the distric t c ourt fa i ls to m ake a de te rm ination ‘ that the ple a ding c ould not possibly be c ure d by the a lle gation of othe r fa c ts.’ ” Shark e y v . O’N e a l , 778 F.3d 767, 774 (9th C ir. 2015) (quoting Lope z v . Smith , 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th C ir. 2000)). The distric t c ourt did not eva luate the fa c tors se t out in Foman v . Dav is , 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962); se e Emine nc e C apital, LLC

v . Aspe on,

* * The Honora

ble Kathle e n C ardone , Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the W e ste rn Distric t of Te xa s, sitting by de signa tion. 2Inc
. , 316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th C ir. 2003). Nor did it find tha t the c la ss de finition

“ c o uld not possibly

” be c ure d

by am e ndm e n t. Shark

e y , 778 F.3d a

t 774 (e m pha sis
om i tte d). M ore ove r, a l though the la ngua g e c ould ha

ve be e n m ore pre c i se , the
c om pla i nt, fa irly

re a d, a lle ge s tha

t Pa rsittie ’ s propose d c la ss de finition inc lude s e m ploy e e s who a

re e m ploy e d by sta ffing a ge nc ie s a c ting a s joint e m ploy e rs with the d e fe nda

nt. Furthe rm ore , Parsittie ’ s singlefa ilure to c ure de fe c ts in thec la ss de finition doe s not c onstitute “ re pe a te d fa ilure to c ure de fic ie nc ie s .” Foman , 371 U.S. at 182. Give n the pla usible re a ding of the c om pla int, thefa i lure to find futility , a nd the proc e dura l history , Parsittie should a t le a st ha ve be e n gra

n te d le ave to a m e nd to a lle ge the c la s s de finition more pre c ise ly . W e the re fore re m and with instruc tions to al low Pa

rsittie an opportunity

to a m e nd his c la s s de finition to
c om ply with thedistric t c ourt’ s prior guida nc e . 2. Parsittie sta

te d a c la im for m inim

um -wa ge and ove rtim e viola tions. C a lifornia e m ploy e rs m ust pa y e m ploy e e s a m inim

um wa ge for a ll hours worke d. Frle k in v
. Apple

Inc
. , 457 P.3d 526, 531 (C a l. 2020). If a non-e x e m

pt e m ploy e e works m ore tha

n e ight hours in a

da y or forty hours in a

we e k, the e m

ploy e r m ust pa y the a pplic a ble ove rtim e ra te . C a l. La b. C ode § 510(a ). He re , Parsittie a lle ge d sixty -five da

y s whe re wa iting in Sc hne i de r’ s se c urity line s a dde d up to fifte e n
m inute s to his “ t

y pic a l[] ” e ight-hour workda y
— tim e for whic h Parsittie wa s not
3c om

pe nsate d. Dra

wing a ll re a s ona

ble infe re nc e s in Pa

rsittie ’ s favor, se e Re tail Prop. Tr. v
. Unite d Bhd. of C arpe nte rs & J

oine rs of Am. , 768 F.3d 938, 945 (9th C ir. 2014), he ha s suffic ie n tly a lle ge d tha

t tim e spe nt wa iting in line wa s c om pe nsa ble , c f. Frlek i n , 457 P.3d a

t 538, a nd tha t the a dditiona l tim e c a

use d him to work unc om

pe nsat e d ove rtim e hours. 3. Parsittie sta

te d a c la im for m e a l- a

n d re st-bre ak viola

tions unde r C a lifornia La bor C ode § 226.7(b). An e m ploy e r m ay

not dic tate the wa

y e m ploy e e s spe nd the i r bre aks or disc o ura g e the m from ta king thefull sta

tutorily prote c te d tim e . Se e Augustus v . ABM Se c . Se rv s., Inc
. , 385 P.3d 823, 826 (C a l. 2016) (c iting Brink e r Re st. C orp. v . Supe rior C

t. , 273 P.3d 513, 535–36 (C a l. 2012)). Pa rsittie a l le ge d sixty -five da

y s in whic h Sc h ne i de r’ s se c urity sc re e nings e ithe r disc oura ge d him from le aving thefa c ility during his m e a l bre ak or c a use d him to sa c rific e a

portion of his bre ak to le ave . Those a lle gations a re suffic ie nt to sta

te a c l a im for bre aktim e viola tions. Parsittie a lso a lle ge d tha

t Sc hne ide r disc oura ge d him from ta king bre aks by
a ssigning more work tha

n he c ould c om

ple te in a n e ight-hour shift. An e

m ploy e r
m ay not “pre s sur[e ] e m

ploy e e s to pe rform

the ir dutie s in wa

y s tha t om it bre aks.” Brink e r , 273 P.3d a

t 536. He re , Parsittie a lle ge d tha t Sc hne ide r’ s produc tivity
re quire m e nts c a

u se d e m ploy e e s to “ work through the ir m e a l [a nd re st] pe riods in
4orde r to c om ple t e the ir a ssignm e nts on tim e . ” W e the re fore re m and Pa rsittie ’ s
m e a l- a nd re s t-bre ak c la im s insofa r a s the y arise out of Sc hne ide r’ s se c urity
sc re e ning polic y

an d produc tivity

re quire m e nts. 4. The distric t c ourt prope rly dism isse d Parsittie ’ s wa ge -state m e n t c la im unde r C a lifornia La bor C ode § 226(a ). Assuming Pa rsittie ha s not wa i ve d this a rgum e nt, he fa ile d to ple a d tha

t Sc hne ide r’ s fa ilure to providea c c urat e wa ge sta te m e nts wa s knowing a

nd inte ntiona l. Se e C a l. La b. C ode § 226(e )(1). 5. Parsittie wa ive d his c ha lle nge to the distric t c ourt’ s dism issa l of his fina lwa ge c la i m

unde r C a l ifornia

La bor C ode § 203 by

fa iling to raise it in his ope ning brie f. Se e Smith v . Marsh , 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th C ir. 1999). Pa rsittie ’ s sole
argum e nt on a

ppe a l is tha

t this c la im

is no longer de rivat ive of fa ile d wa ge -andhour c la im s. Though true , Parsittie ha s not c ha lle nge d the distric t c ourt’ s a lte rnative holding tha

t he fa ile d to a lle g e fa c ts re ga rding the de fic ie nc ie s in his fina l pa y sta te m e nt. W e a ffirm

the distric t c ourt’ s dism issa l of Pa rsittie ’ s fina lwa ge c la i m . 6. The distric t c ourt’ s dism i ssa l of Parsittie ’ s unfa ir c o m pe tition c la im

(UC L
c la im ) and his Priva

te Attorne y s Ge ne ra l Ac t

c l a im (PAGA c la im ) are no longe r va lid in light of this re

m a nd. The distric t c ourt’ s sole re a son for dismissing those
c la im s wa s tha

t the y we re de rivative of his wa ge -and-hour c la im s , whic h it found
5insuffic ie ntly ple a de d. Ha

ving re m ande d Parsittie ’ s wa ge -and-hour c la im s, his UC L a nd PAGA c la im s are no longe r de riva tive of fa ile d c la im s a

nd a re a lso
re m ande d for furthe r proc e e dings. 7. The distric t c ourt c o rre c tly dism isse d Parsittie ’ s lia

b ility -sha ring c la im
. C a lifornia La bor C ode § 2810.3(b) im

pose s sha re d lia bility for wa ge -and-hour viola tions be twe e n a

“ c lie nt e m

ploy e r” an d

a “ la b or c ontra c tor.” A “ [c ] lie nt
e m ploy e r” is a

“ b u sine s s e ntity

. . . tha t obta ins or is provide d worke rs to pe rform la bor within its usua

l c ourse of busine ss.” Id. § 2810.3(a)(1)(A). A “ [l] a bor
c ontra c tor” is the e ntity

“ that supplie s . . . a

c lie nt e m ploy e r with worke rs to pe rform la

bor within the

c l ie nt e m ploy e r’ s usua l c ourse of busine ss.” Id. § 2810.3(a)(3). Pa

rsittie ’ s c om

pla int did not ide

ntify any la bor c ontra c tor with whom Sc hne i de r should sha

re lia bility or a lle ge tha

t a la b or c o ntra c tor provide d Sc hne ide r with e m

ploy e e s at a ll. The c om

pla int a lso did not a

lle ge that Pa

rsittie provide d Sc hne ide r with a de quate notic e of his sha re d lia b ility c la im s, a s re quire d by § 2810.3(d). As e le m e nts e sse ntia l to the c la i m we re not a lle ge d, we a ffirm the distric t c o urt’ s dism issa l of Pa rsittie ’ s lia

bility -sha ring c l a im
. 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.

6Parsittie

v . Sc hne ide r Logistic

s, Inc . e t al. , No. 20-55470 B YB EE, C irc uit Judge , disse nting in pa rt: I write se pa

rate ly be c a

use I am not pe rsua de d tha

t the distric t c ourt a

buse d its disc re t ion by

striking Pa

rsittie ’ s c la ss de finition without le ave to a m e nd. In m

y vie w , the distric t c ourt’ s de c ision to deny le ave to a

m e nd a fte r Parsittie fa i le d to
c ure the de fe c ts in his first opportunity to a m e nd is e xa c tly

the ty pe of de c ision tha

t fa lls within the

tria l c ourt’ s disc re tion “ to a c hie ve the orde rly and e xpe ditious disposition of c a s e s.” D i e tz v . Bouldin , 136 S. C t. 1885, 1891 (2016) (c ita tion
om i tte d). Whe re , a s he re , the pla intiff ha d prior opportunitie s to re m e dy ple a ding de fe c ts, we have he ld tha

t the distric t c ourt’ s disc re tion to gra nt or de ny

le av e to
am e nd is “

pa rtic ula rly broa d .” Ec ologic al Rts. Found. v
. Pac . Gas. and Ele c . C o. , 713 F.3d 502, 520 (9th C ir. 2013) (c ita tion omitte d). Inde e d, Foman v . Dav is , 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962), re c ogniz e s this disc re tion by c arving out a

n e xc e ption to the libe ra l am e ndm e nt polic y ba se d on a

pa rty ’ s “ re pe a te d fa ilure to c ure de fic i e nc ie s by am e ndm e nts pre v iously

a llowe d .” Not only

did the distric t c ourt pre viously gran t Pa rsittie le a v e to a m e n d , it provide d the blue print for suc h am e n dm e nt a nd
warne d Parsittie tha

t furthe r am e ndm e nt would not be a llowe d. Pa

rsittie wa s not blindside d by

the dism issa l, nor did hede m onstra te to the distric t c ourt tha

t furthe r
am e ndm e nt would c ure the de fic ie nc y . I would a ffirm the distric t c ourt’ s dism issa l of the c la ss de finition. I c onc ur in a ll othe r re spe c ts. 

# FIL ED JUN 9 2021 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS