Gulf Offshore Logistics, LLC v. Superior Court of Ventura Cnty.

272 Cal.Rptr.3d 356

GULF OFFSHORE LOGISTICS, LLC et al., Petitioners,

v.The SUPERIOR COURT OF VENTURA COUNTY, Respondent,Claude Norris et al., Real Parties in Interest.

2d Civil No. B298318

Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 6, California.

Filed December 7, 2020

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld and Gregory W. Knopp ; Phelps Dunbar and Jolee Land ; and David M. Korn for Petitioners.

No appearance for Respondent.

Rothschild & Alwill and Kristi D. Rothschild for Real Parties in Interest.

OPINION ON REMAND

YEGAN, Acting P. J.

This case returns to us after the California Supreme Court directed us to reconsider our prior opinion in light of Ward v. United Airlines, Inc. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 732, 264 Cal.Rptr.3d 1, 466 P.3d 309 ( Ward ) and Oman v. Delta Air Lines, Inc. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 762, 264 Cal.Rptr.3d 20, 466 P.3d 325 ( Oman ). In our prior opinion, we held Louisiana law governed the employment relationships at issue here. After considering the Supreme Court's recent guidance on the matter, we now conclude that California law applies and that the trial court correctly denied petitioner's motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandate.

Petitioners, Louisiana-based employers Gulf Offshore Logistics, LLC and JNB Operating, LLC, employed real parties in interest, non-California residents, to work as crew members on a vessel that provided maintenance services to offshore oil platforms. The vessel was docked at a California port and sailed through California waters to the platforms, which are located outside the state's boundaries.

Crew members alleged that petitioners violated numerous provisions of California's wage and hour laws, including those relating to minimum wage and overtime, providing meal and rest periods, maintaining accurate work records and providing complete wage statements. Petitioners moved for summary judgment on the theories that Louisiana rather than California law governed these employment relationships and that the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) preempted California law with respect to these employees. The superior court denied the motion because petitioners had not "demonstrated that Louisiana law should apply" or that California law has been preempted.

Petitioners sought a writ of mandate directing the superior court to vacate its order denying the motion for summary judgment and to enter a new order granting the motion. We issued an order to show cause and temporarily stayed all trial court proceedings. In our prior opinion, we applied a conflict of laws analysis and concluded that Louisiana law governed because that state had more significant contacts with the parties and a greater interest in regulating the employment relationships at issue.

After the Supreme Court granted review and transferred the matter back to us, we vacated our prior opinion and received supplemental briefs from the parties. We now conclude that California law applies and that the trial court correctly denied the motion for summary judgment.

Facts

Petitioners own and operate the Adele Elise, a vessel that provided services to oil platforms located off the California coast. The crew members represent a class of persons who were employed by petitioners to work on the Adele Elise after July 14, 2012. They allege petitioners failed to comply with numerous provisions of California's wage and hour laws.

Petitioners are limited liability companies formed under Louisiana law. Every member of both companies is also a Louisiana resident. The companies have their headquarters in Louisiana and the Adele Elise, the vessel on which crew members were employed, is registered in that state. Although the Adele Elise operated for a time in the Gulf of Mexico, it was repositioned to the Pacific Ocean in March 2011 and remained there until October 2017.

Petitioners’ administrative functions are performed at their headquarters in Louisiana. Each former crew member traveled to Louisiana to apply in person for a job and to interview for that job. They also completed and acknowledged receipt of employment-related documents in Louisiana. Staff at petitioners’ Louisiana office made arrangements to transport the crew members to and from the vessels to which they were assigned.

The crew members worked on the Adele Elise from March 2011 when it was repositioned from the Gulf of Mexico to the Pacific Ocean. In October 2017, the vessel left California. Between 2011 and 2017, the Adele Elise was docked at Port Hueneme. While stationed at Port Hueneme, the Adele Elise traveled through the Santa Barbara Channel to deliver supplies and pick up refuse from four oil platforms located in federal waters off the California coast. Between July 2012 and May 2015, the Adele Elise made approximately three trips each week to the oil platforms. After an oil spill occurred in May 2015, the average number of weekly trips declined.

The crew members are a class that is represented by three named members: Claude Norris, Douglas Kwaw and James Musgrove. None of the named class representatives resides in California. Norris, a resident of Texas, was employed as an able-bodied seaman aboard the Adele Elise while it was stationed at Port Hueneme for 571.5 days from June 2013 to January 2016. Norris was paid a flat daily rate for his services, ranging from $140 to $350 per day. Kwaw, a resident of Ohio, was employed as an able-bodied seaman aboard the Adele Elise while it was stationed at Port Hueneme for 580.5 days between July 2013 and August 2015. He was paid a flat daily rate for his services, ranging between $265 to $350 per day. Musgrove, a resident of Mississippi, was employed as an engineer aboard the Adele Elise while it was stationed at Port Hueneme for 471.5 days between August 2013 and February 2016. He was paid a flat daily rate for his services, ranging between $310 to $750 per day. The employment of each class representative was terminated only because of a reduction in force. The crew members’ wage and hour claims were made after their employment was terminated.

The crew members who were employed as able bodied seamen typically worked a "hitch" of 42 days on and 21 days off. Those employed as engineers worked 21 days on and 21 days off. Each employee would travel by air from the airport closest to the crew member's home in Texas, Ohio, and Mississippi to Los Angeles, where they were shuttled to the vessel in Port Hueneme. At the end of their hitch, the employees would be shuttled back to the Los Angeles airport and flown back to their home states. Administrative employees of petitioners, who were located in Louisiana, made travel arrangements for the crew members.

Once they arrived at the vessel, the crew members were not permitted to leave the vessel without permission for the remainder of their hitch. Occasionally, they were asked to disembark when the vessel was in port, to run errands or pick up supplies. They worked at least 12 hours per day each day of their hitch, whether the vessel was docked at Port Hueneme or underway to or from the platforms. The job duties of crew members who were employed as deckhands and able-bodied seamen included handling tow and mooring lines, securing the vessel to docks and wharves, assisting in loading and unloading supplies, equipment and cargo, assisting with pumping water and fuel, cleaning the vessel and lifeboats, standing lookout, food preparation and cleaning the galley, repairing machinery and equipment, and performing other maintenance tasks such as painting, sanding, chipping and scraping the vessel.

Other crew members were employed as engineers. These employees’ job duties included general engine maintenance, changing the engine oil, servicing the engine, pumping mud and chemicals off the vessel on the platforms, receiving fuel for the vessel and fueling the vessel on the platforms.

While docked at Port Hueneme, the Adele Elise would sail through the Santa Barbara Channel to deliver supplies to, and pick up refuse from four oil platforms. The vessel left from, and returned to the same port; it did not travel to other states.

Travel time from port to the first platform was approximately 7 hours. After servicing the first platform, the vessel would travel to the second, third and fourth platforms and then back to Port Hueneme. The journey from the fourth platform to Port Hueneme typically took about 8 hours. The entire round trip lasted about 24 hours.

The port of Port Hueneme is located within the State of California while the oil platforms are located outside the state's boundaries. On its route to and from the platforms, the Adele Elise sailed both inside and outside of California's state boundaries. The parties dispute how much time the Adele Elise spent outside the state. It is undisputed, however, that between March 2011 and October 2017, the Adele Elise docked exclusively at Port Hueneme, California.

Discussion

Territorial Reach of California Law

As our Supreme Court explained in Tidewater Marine Western , Inc. v. Bradshaw (1996) 14 Cal.4th 557, 59 Cal.Rptr.2d 186, 927 P.2d 296 ( Tidewater ), federal law defines California's territorial boundaries more narrowly than does California state law. Under California's state law definition of its own boundaries, "the entire Santa Barbara Channel is within the state." ( Id . at p. 564, 59 Cal.Rptr.2d 186, 927 P.2d 296.) Under federal law, "the central portion of the Santa Barbara Channel is not within the state." ( Ibid . ) "In defining California's federal law boundaries, Congress did not, however, suggest that California lacked power to regulate conduct outside those boundaries and within broader state law boundaries." ( Ibid . ) To the contrary, "California employment laws implicitly extend to employment occurring within California's state law boundaries, including all of the Santa Barbara Channel," unless "the operation of federal law were at issue, as for example if federal law conflicted with state law." ( Id. at p. 565, 59...