Carl Curtis, an individual; Arthur Williams, Plaintiffs-Appellants
Irwin Industries, Inc., a California corporation; Does, 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants-Appellees.
and Submitted October 9, 2018 Pasadena, California
from the United States District Court for the Central
District of California No. 2:15-cv-02480-ODW-E Otis D. Wright
II, District Judge, Presiding
Michael A. Strauss (argued) and Aris E. Karakalos, Strauss
& Strauss APC, Ventura, California, for
J. Holland (argued), Ellen M. Bronchetti, and Christopher M.
Foster, DLA Piper LLP, San Francisco, California, for
Before: Sandra S. Ikuta and John B. Owens, Circuit Judges,
and Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., [*] District Judge.
panel affirmed in part the district court's dismissal of
a wage-and-hour suit and remanded in part.
worked for a company that conducted operations on oil
platforms located off the coast of California, on the Outer
Continental Shelf. The panel held that plaintiffs' claim
for overtime pay was preempted under § 301 of the Labor
Management Relations Act because California overtime law does
not apply to an employee working under a qualifying
collective bargaining agreement; therefore, plaintiffs'
right to overtime existed solely as a result of their CBAs.
panel remanded to the district court to review meal and rest
period and minimum wage claims, as well as derivative claims,
and address issues of preemption under § 301 and the
Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, as well as issues of
California labor law.
Curtis brought a putative class action lawsuit against his
former employer, Irwin Industries (Irwin), alleging that
Irwin denied him overtime pay, failed to give him meal and
rest periods, and failed to pay him minimum wage for the 12
hours he was off duty. Curtis's claim for overtime pay is
preempted under § 301 of the Labor Management Relations
Act (LMRA), 29 U.S.C. § 185, because California overtime
law does not apply to an employee working under a qualifying
collective bargaining agreement, Cal. Lab. Code § 514,
and Curtis worked under such an agreement. We remand
Curtis's remaining claims to the district court to
address in the first instance.
is a former employee of Irwin, a company that conducts
operations on oil platforms located off the coast of
California, on the Outer Continental Shelf. While working for
Irwin, Curtis was regularly scheduled to work seven 12hour
shifts in a seven-day period, with twelve hours on duty,
followed by twelve hours off duty.
member of United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber,
Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers
International Union, Local 1945 (Union), Curtis was subject
to two collective bargaining agreements (CBAs) between the
Union and Irwin: the National Master
by and between Irwin's Operations Group and the Union,
and the National Master Agreement by and between Irwin's
Maintenance and Construction Group and the Union. Both
agreements include detailed provisions regarding wages,
overtime, and hours, as well as provisions requiring
employees to grieve and arbitrate disputes concerning the
application and terms of the CBAs.
using the dispute-resolution provisions of the CBAs, Curtis
filed a putative class action complaint against Irwin in
California state court. The complaint was based on
Curtis's theory that his 12 off-duty hours counted as
"hours worked" for purposes of California labor
laws, see Cal. Lab. Code § 510, because, as a
practical matter, he was unable to leave the oil platform
during that time. Curtis relied on a recent California
Supreme Court case holding that security guards were
"entitled to compensation for all on-call hours spent at
their assigned worksites under their employer's
control." Mendiola v. CPS Sec. Sols., Inc., 60
Cal.4th 833, 836 (2015). Extending Mendiola's
reasoning from on-call hours to off-duty hours, Curtis argues
that Irwin violated various California wage and hour laws by
failing to recognize his 12 hours of off-duty time as
"hours worked." Specifically, the complaint alleges
that Irwin denied him overtime pay for the 12 hours he was
off duty, see Cal. Lab. Code § 510, failed to
give him meal and rest periods for that period, see