Court Opinion

ID: 9366654
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-27 17:00:34.062411+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:54.202078
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        JAN 27 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SERGIO COTA, individually; and on behalf        No.    22-55303
of all others similarly situated,
                                                D.C. No.
                Plaintiff-Appellant,            3:18-cv-01163-LAB-AGS

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
FRESENIUS USA, INC., a Massachusetts
corporation; et al.,

                Defendants-Appellees.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Southern District of California
                    Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding

                          Submitted December 6, 2022**
                              Pasadena, California

Before: KELLY,*** M. SMITH, and COLLINS, Circuit Judges.

      In April 2018, Plaintiff-Appellant Sergio Cota filed a class action, together

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
      ***
            The Honorable Paul J. Kelly, Jr., United States Circuit Judge for the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, sitting by designation.
with a representative cause of action under the Private Attorneys General Act, Cal.

Lab. Code § 2699 (West 2016), against his employer Fresenius USA

Manufacturing, Inc. (Fresenius), asserting violations of California’s Meal and Rest

Break Rules (MRB Rules), as set forth in California Labor Code sections 226.7

and 512 and associated wage orders and regulations.1 In December 2018, the

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration declared the MRB Rules preempted

by federal regulations as applied to certain commercial drivers, pursuant to its

authority under 49 U.S.C. § 31141. California’s Meal and Rest Break Rules for

Commercial Motor Vehicle Drivers, 83 Fed. Reg. 67,470 (Dec. 28, 2018)

(“California may no longer enforce the MRB Rules with respect to drivers [subject

to certain commercial regulations].”).

      In International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 2785 v. Federal Motor

Carrier Safety Administration, 986 F.3d 841 (9th Cir. 2021), we approved the

preemption order but left open the question of the order’s temporal scope. Id. at

858 n.5 (“We thus do not consider the retroactivity issue.”). After Teamsters was

decided, Fresenius moved for summary judgment, which the district court granted

in full, concluding it was unable to enforce Mr. Cota’s MRB Rules claims (or any

derivative claims) under the 2018 order, regardless of when the underlying

1
 Mr. Cota also asserted additional claims below, but the only ones at issue in this
appeal are claims that are based, directly or indirectly, on the MRB Rules.

                                          2
violation occurred. On appeal, Mr. Cota argues that the 2018 order does not

preclude claims predicated on conduct predating the order.

       This precise issue was resolved in our recent decision in Valiente v. Swift

Transportation Co. of Arizona, 54 F.4th 581 (9th Cir. 2022). Our disposition of

this case is governed by that decision. There, the panel majority found the

statutory language in 49 U.S.C. § 31141(a) to be clear: “A state ‘may not enforce’

preempted laws. Any court decision giving effect to California’s MRB rules

would thus contravene the statute.” Valiente, 54 F.4th at 585–86 (quoting 49

U.S.C. § 31141(a)) (citation omitted). In light of Valiente, courts lack authority to

enforce preempted claims arising under California’s MRB Rules no matter when

the violative conduct occurred. The district court did not err by granting

Fresenius’s motion for summary judgment.

      AFFIRMED.

                                          3