Horowitz v. Skywest Airlines, Inc.

1

GREGORY HOROWITZ, Plaintiff, v. SKYWEST AIRLINES, INC., Defendant.

No. 21-cv-04674-MMC

United States District Court, N.D. California

May 22, 2023

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

RE: DKT. NO. 52

M/UINE M. CHESNEY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Before the Court is defendant SkyWest Airlines, Inc.'s (“SkyWest”) Motion for Summary Adjudication filed December 2, 2022, as amended December 5, 2022, in which intervenor SkyWest Airlines Pilot Association (“SAPA”) has filed a joinder. Plaintiff Gregory Horowitz (“Horowitz”) has filed opposition, to which SkyWest has replied. The Court, having read and considered the papers filed in support of and in opposition to the motion, rules as follows.^[1]

BACKGROUND

In the operative complaint, the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), Horowitz alleges he “worked as a Pilot for [SkyWest]” (see FAC ¶ 5) and seeks to proceed on behalf of a class defined as “all [SkyWest's] California-based Pilots, at any time during the four years before the filing of this [FAC] through the date of trial” (see FAC ¶ 13).

According to Horowitz, SkyWest “fail[ed] to . . . pay minimum and overtime wages; provide meal periods; authorize and permit paid rest periods; reimburse business-related expenses provide accurate itemized wage statements; and timely pay wages due upon separation of employment.” (See FAC ¶ 2.)

Based on the above allegations, Horowitz brings the following fourteen Causes of Action: (1) “Failure to Pay Minimum Wages,” (2) “Failure to Pay Overtime Wages,” (3) “Failure to Provide Required Meal Periods,” (4) “Failure to Provide Required Rest Periods,” (5) “Failure to Reimburse Expenses,” (6) “Failure to Provide Accurate Wage Statements,” (7) “Failure to Timely Pay Wages Due at Separation,” (8) “Violation of the Unfair Competition Law,” (9) “PAGA Civil Penalties for Failure to Pay Minimum and Overtime Wages,” (10) “PAGA Civil Penalties for Failure to Provide Meal Periods,” (11) “PAGA Civil Penalties for Failure to Authorize and Permit Paid Rest Periods,” (12) “PAGA Civil Penalties for Failure to Reimburse Business-Related Expenses,” (13) “PAGA Civil Penalties for Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized Wage Statements,” (14) “PAGA Civil Penalties for Failure to Timely Pay Wages Due Upon Separation of Employment.”

By the instant motion, SkyWest argues it is entitled to summary judgment on the Third through Fourteenth Causes of Action.^[2]

LEGAL STANDARD

Pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a “court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” See Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a).

The Supreme Court's 1986 “trilogy” of Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986), Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986), and Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (1986), requires that a party seeking summary judgment show the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. The moving party need not “produce evidence showing the absence of a genuine issue of material fact,” but may discharge its burden simply by pointing out “that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party's case.” See Celotex, 477 U.S. at 325. Once the moving party has done so, the nonmoving party must “go beyond the pleadings and by [its] own affidavits, or by the depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, designate specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” See id. at 324 (internal quotation and citation omitted). “When the moving party has carried its burden under Rule 56[ ], its opponent must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts.” Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 586. “If the [opposing party's] evidence is merely colorable, or is not significantly probative, summary judgment may be granted.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249-50 (citations omitted). “[I]nferences to be drawn from the underlying facts,” however, “must be viewed in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion.” See Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 587 (internal quotation and citation omitted).

DISCUSSION

A. Third and Fourth Causes of Action - Meal and Rest Break (“MRB”) Claims

The Third Cause of Action is brought pursuant to § 512 of the California Labor Code and § 11 of the Industrial Welfare Commission (“IWC”) Wage Order No. 9-2001 § 11, both of which require employers to provide employees with “a meal period of not less than 30 minutes” for “a work period of more than five hours” as well as a “second meal period of not less than 30 minutes” for a “work period of more than 10 hours per day.” See Cal. Lab. Code § 512(a); Cal. Code Regs. tit. 8, § 11090(11)(A)-(B). The Fourth Cause of Action is brought pursuant to IWC Wage Order No. 9-2001 § 12, which requires employers to “authorize and permit all employees to take rest periods . . . based on the total hours worked daily at the rate of ten (10) minutes net rest time per four (4) hours or major fraction thereof.” See Cal. Code Regs. tit. 8, § 11090(12)(A). Both the Third and Fourth Causes of Action are also brought pursuant to § 226.7 of the California Labor Code, which prohibits an employer from “requir[ing] an employee to work during a meal or rest . . . period,” and requires the employer to “pay the employee one additional hour of pay at the employee's regular rate of compensation for each workday that the meal or rest . . . period is not provided.” See Cal. Lab. Code § 226.7(b)-(c).

Horowitz bases the Third and Fourth Causes of Action on allegations that SkyWest failed to comply with the above-cited MRB requirements under California law. SkyWest argues the Third and Fourth Causes of Action are preempted by the Federal Aviation Act (“FAA”).

“Under the field preemption doctrine, ‘[s]tates are precluded from regulating conduct in a field that Congress, acting within its proper authority, has determined must be regulated by its exclusive governance.'” See Bernstein v. Virgin Am., Inc., 3 F.4th 1127, 1138 (9th Cir. 2021) (citing Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387, 399 (2012)), cert. denied, 142 S.Ct. 2903 (2022). The Ninth Circuit has “held that the FAA, together with the federal aviation regulations (‘FARs') promulgated by the Federal Aviation Administration . . ., ‘occupies the entire field of aviation safety' and that Congress ‘clearly indicated its intent to be the sole regulator' of this field.” See Ventress v. Japan Airlines, 747 F.3d 716, 721 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting Montalvo v. Spirit Airlines, 508 F.3d 464, 47376 (9th Cir. 2007)). Consistent therewith, “federal law preempts state law claims that encroach upon, supplement, or alter the federally occupied field of aviation safety.” See Bernstein, 3 F.4th at 1139 (internal quotation, citation, alteration, and emphasis omitted).

Here, SkyWest argues that under the FAA, “[e]ach pilot in command of an aircraft is, during flight time, in command of the aircraft and crew and is responsible for the safety of the passengers, crewmembers, cargo, and airplane” (see SkyWest's Mot. for Summ. Adjudication (“Def.'s Mot.”) at 11:12-14, Dkt. No. 52 (quoting 14 C.F.R. § 121.533)), and must “[b]e at the crewmember station”^[3] during “takeoff and landing, and while en route, . . . unless . . . absence is necessary to perform duties in connection with the operation of the aircraft or in connection with physiological needs” (see Def.'s Mot. at 11:15-17 (quoting 14 C.F.R. § 91.105)). Consequently, SkyWest contends, “[t]hese regulations leave no room to allow a pilot to [take a break] for 10 or 30 minutes,” during which time the pilot may not be required to work. (See Def.'s Mot. at 11:17); see also Cal. Lab. Code § 226.7(b) (providing “[a]n employer shall not require an employee to work during a meal or rest . . . period”).

In response, Horowitz argues “California's meal and rest requirements have been found to apply to the airline industry” (see Pl.'s Opp'n to SkyWest's Mot. for Summ. Adjudication (“Pl.'s Opp'n”) at 5:17-18, Dkt. No. 54), and, in support thereof, cites two cases, see Bernstein, 3 F.4th at 1138-39; Wilson v. SkyWest Airlines, Inc., 2021 WL 2913656, at *1 (N.D. Cal. July 12, 2021), holding, as to flight attendants, California's MRB requirements are not preempted by the FAA. As to pilots, however, as SkyWest points out, the FAA has been found to preempt state MRB requirements.

In particular, in Joseph v. Berkeley Grp., LLC, 823 Fed.Appx. 472 (9th Cir. 2020), the Ninth Circuit held a Nevada statute setting forth MRB requirements similar to those at issue here, see Nev. Rev. Stat. § 608.019(1)-(2),^[4] is preempted by the FAA, noting “[f]ederal regulations applicable to [an airline's] operations provide detailed standards governing the duration of pilots' rest breaks between duty periods,” and thus “preempt the pilots' claims that they were entitled under state law to breaks of different frequency and duration,” see Joseph, 823 Fed.Appx. at 473.

Accordingly, the Court finds the Third and Fourth Causes of Action are preempted by the FAA and, consequently, SkyWest is entitled to summary judgment thereon.^[5]//

B. Fifth Cause of Action - Expenditure Reimbursement Claim

The Fifth Cause of Action is brought pursuant to § 2802 of the California Labor Code, which requires “[a]n employer [to] indemnify his or her employee for all necessary expenditures or losses incurred by the employee in direct consequence of the discharge of his or her duties.” See Cal. Lab. Code § 2802(a).

Horowitz bases the Fifth Cause of Action on allegations that he was “required by [SkyWest] to use [his] personal cell phone[] regularly to clock in when...