Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Stewart v. San Luis Ambulance, Inc.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

December 29, 2017

Dylan Stewart, an individual, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
San Luis Ambulance, Inc., a California Corporation, Defendant-Appellee.

         D.C. No. 2:13-cv-09458-BRO-SS

          Counsel for Plaintiff-Appellants Hernaldo J. Baltodano, Esquire, Attorney Baltodano & Baltodano LLP, Peter R. Dion-Kindem Peter R. Dion-Kindem, P.C., Allison Lee Ehlert, Esquire Ehlert Appeals, Paul Keith Haines, Esquire, Attorney Haines Law Group, APC, Jeff Holmes Jeff Holmes, Esq.

          Counsel for Defendant-Appellee Sean McLoughlin Hill, FaE rrer & Burrill, LLP One California Plaza

          Before Johnnie B. Rawlinson and N. Randy Smith, Circuit Judges, and Edward R. Korman, [*] District Judge.

         SUMMARY [**]

         Certification of Questions to State Supreme Court The panel certified the following questions to the Supreme Court of California:

1. Under the California Labor Code and applicable regulations, is an employer of ambulance attendants working twenty-four hour shifts required to relieve attendants of all duties during rest breaks, including the duty to be available to respond to an emergency call if one arises during a rest period?
2. Under the California Labor Code and applicable regulations, may an employer of ambulance attendants working twenty-four hour shifts require attendants to be available to respond to emergency calls during their meal periods without a written agreement that contains an on-duty meal period revocation clause? If such a clause is required, will a general at-will employment clause satisfy this requirement?
3.Do violations of meal period regulations, which require payment of a "premium wage" for each improper meal period, give rise to claims under sections 203 and 225 of the California Labor Code where the employer does not include the premium wage in the employee's pay or pay statements during the course of the violations?

         The panel withdrew submission of the appeal, stayed proceedings, and directed the Clerk to administratively close the docket pending further order.

          ORDER CERTIFYING QUESTIONS TO THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA

         Before this panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is an appeal concerning the applicability of meal- and rest-period regulations to the employers of ambulance attendants working twenty-four hour shifts. Also before the panel is the issue of whether meal period violations may form the basis for unpaid wages and improper wage reporting claims under sections 203 and 226 of the California Labor Code. As we are aware of no controlling state precedent that resolves these issues, we respectfully ask the Supreme Court of California to exercise its discretion to accept and decide the certified questions below.

         I. Questions Certified

         Pursuant to Rule 8.548 of the California Rules of Court, we request that the Court answer the following questions:

1. Under the California Labor Code and applicable regulations, is an employer of ambulance attendants working twenty-four hour shifts required to relieve attendants of all duties during rest breaks, including the duty to be available to ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.