Case Name: Felipe DELGADO, an individual on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others similarly situated; et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. ORTHO-MCNEIL, INC., a New Jersey corporation; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Joseph Yacoubian, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; and Patricia Donnelly, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Ortho-McNeil Pharmaceutical, Inc., a Delaware corporation; and Ortho-McNeil Neurologies, Inc., a New Jersey corporation, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-08-14
Citations: 476 F. App'x 133
Docket Number: Nos. 09-55225, 09-55229
Parties: Felipe DELGADO, an individual on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others similarly situated; et al., Plaintiffs—Appellants, v. ORTHO-MCNEIL, INC., a New Jersey corporation; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Joseph Yacoubian, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; and Patricia Donnelly, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Ortho-McNeil Pharmaceutical, Inc., a Delaware corporation; and Ortho-McNeil Neurologies, Inc., a New Jersey corporation, Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, TALLMAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 476
Pages: 133–134

Head Matter:
Felipe DELGADO, an individual on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others similarly situated; et al., Plaintiffs—Appellants, v. ORTHO-MCNEIL, INC., a New Jersey corporation; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Joseph Yacoubian, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; and Patricia Donnelly, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Ortho-McNeil Pharmaceutical, Inc., a Delaware corporation; and Ortho-McNeil Neurologies, Inc., a New Jersey corporation, Defendants—Appellees.
Nos. 09-55225, 09-55229.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued Nov. 3, 2010.
Submitted Aug. 10, 2012.
Filed Aug. 14, 2012.
Aashish Yadvendra Desai, Esquire, Mower Carreon & Desai, Irvine, CA, Christopher M. Heikaus Weaver, Esquire, Rutan & Tucker, LLP, Costa Mesa, CA, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
John S. Battenfeld, Esquire, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Jennifer Elizabeth White, Esquire, Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP, Irvine, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: SCHROEDER, TALLMAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Plaintiffs-Appellants Felipe Delgado, Quinton Bickley, Joseph Yacoubian, and Patricia Donnelly appeal two orders of the Central District of California granting summary judgment for their employers, Ortho-McNeil, Inc., Janssen Ortho-McNeil Primary Care, Inc., and Janssen L.P. (collectively, Ortho). In both actions, Plaintiffs — all pharmaceutical sales representatives — allege that they and similarly-situated employees are owed unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq., and California Labor Code § 510. As the facts and procedural history are familiar to the parties, we do not recite them here except as necessary to explain our disposition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Pharmaceutical sales representatives whose primary duties include obtaining nonbinding commitment from physicians to prescribe their employer products qualify as outside salesmen and are exempt from the FLSA's overtime wage requirements. Christopher v. SmithKline Beecham, Corp., — U.S.-,-, 132 S.Ct. 2156, 2172-74, 183 L.Ed.2d 153 (2012). Accordingly, the district court did not err in concluding that the pharmaceutical sales representatives are outside salesmen under the FLSA.
Under California law, pharmaceutical sales representatives fall under the "administrative" exemption to California's overtime wage requirements because they customarily and regularly exercise discretion and independent judgment as part of their job, and their duties involve the performance of nonmanual work directly related to general business operations. See Harris v. Superior Court, 53 Cal.4th 170, 135 Cal.Rptr.3d 247, 266 P.3d 953, 958-60, 963-64 (2011). Accordingly, Plaintiffs are subject to the administrative exemption of the California Labor Code. See Cal. Lab. Code § 515(a); Cal.Code Regs. tit. 8, § 11040(1)(A)(2).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.