Case Name: James COLE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CRST VAN EXPEDITED, INC., an Iowa Corporation, fka CRST, Inc., Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-04-14
Citations: 599 F. App'x 755
Docket Number: No. 13-55507
Parties: James COLE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CRST VAN EXPEDITED, INC., an Iowa Corporation, fka CRST, Inc., Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before: SILVERMAN and BEA, Circuit Judges, and QUIST, Senior District Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 599
Pages: 755–755

Head Matter:
James COLE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CRST VAN EXPEDITED, INC., an Iowa Corporation, fka CRST, Inc., Defendant-Appellee.
No. 13-55507.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 9, 2015.
Filed April 14, 2015.
Deepak Gupta, Gupta Beck PLLC, Washington, DC, James R. Hawkins, Esquire, Alvin B. Lindsay, Esquire, Gregory Mauro, Esquire, James Hawkins APLC, Irvine, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Robert Lewis Browning, James Harold Hanson, Esquire, R. Jay Taylor, Jr., Sco-pelitis, Garvin, Light, Hanson & Feary, P.C., Indianapolis, IN, Kathleen C. Jef-fries, Christopher Chad McNatt, Jr., Sco-pelitis, Garvin, Light, Hanson & Feary, LLP, Pasadena, CA, Adam Carl Smedstad, Scopelitis, Garvin, Light, Hanson & Feary, PC, Chicago, IL, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before: SILVERMAN and BEA, Circuit Judges, and QUIST, Senior District Judge.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2). .
The Honorable Gordon J. Quist, Senior District Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Plaintiff James Cole appeals the district court's grant of judgment on the pleadings, dismissing Cole's class action claim against Defendant CRST Van Expedited, Inc. alleging violations of California's meal and rest break laws, Cal. Lab.Code § 226.7, 512, and Cal.Code Regs. tit. 8, § 11090. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we reverse.
On appeal, Cole argues that the district court erred in dismissing his meal and rest break claim on the basis that the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994 preempts California's meal and rest break laws. We review de novo the interpretation and construction of the FAAAA, Tillison v. Gregoire, 424 F.3d 1093, 1098 (9th Cir.2005), and a district court's grant of judgment on the pleadings, Harris v. County of Orange, 682 F.3d 1126, 1131 (9th Cir.201-2).
We recently held in Dilts v. Penslce Logistics, LLC, 769 F.3d 687, 647-50 (9th Cir.2014), that California's meal and rest break laws are not "related to" prices, routes or services and therefore are not preempted by the FAAAA. In light of our holding in Dilts, the district court erred by granting CSRT's motion for judgment on the pleadings on the basis of FAAAA preemption. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with Dilts.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.