Docket Entries Since Last Update
NOTE: This court's RSS feed does not list MOTION entries, so Bloomberg Law cannot detect them and thus they will not be listed here. However, motions will be included if you update the docket.
ERIC CHAVEZ, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CONVERSE, INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant - Appellee, Defendant - Appellee.
June 14, 2019, Argued and Submitted, Pasadena, California
June 28, 2019, Filed
PLEASE REFER TO FEDERAL RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE RULE 32.1 GOVERNING THE CITATION TO UNPUBLISHED OPINIONS.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. D.C. No. 5:15-cv-03746-NC Nathanael M. Cousins, Magistrate Judge, Presiding.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
For ERIC CHAVEZ, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff - Appellant: Larry W. Lee, Max William Gavron, Nicholas Rosenthal, Attorney, Diversity Law Group, Los Angeles, CA; Dennis S. Hyun, Hyun Legal APC, Los Angeles, CA; William Lucas Marder, Attorney, Polaris Law Group, LLP, Hollister, CA.
For CONVERSE, INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant - Appellee: Michael Afar, Jon D. Meer, Attorney, Seyfarth Shaw, LLP, Los Angeles, CA.
Before: SCHROEDER and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and RAKOFF,** District Judge.
Converse requires its retail employees to undergo "off the clock" exit inspections every time they leave the store. Seeking compensation for these exit inspections, plaintiff Eric Chavez brought the instant class action on behalf of himself and similarly situated Converse employees. The District Court granted summary judgment for Converse, holding the Chavez's claims were barred by the federal de minimis doctrine, which precludes recovery for otherwise compensable amounts of time that are small, irregular, or administratively difficult to record. The California Supreme Court subsequently held in Troester v. Starbucks Corp., 5 Cal. 5th 829 , 235 Cal. Rptr. 3d 820 , 421 P.3d 1114 (Cal. 2018), that the federal de minimis doctrine does not apply to wage and hour claims brought under California law.1
For substantially the reasons given in the related case, Rodriguez v. Nike Retail Services, Inc., No. 17-16866, we hold that [*572] the District Court erred in granting summary judgment based on the federal de minimis doctrine. We likewise hold that on the current record there are no alternative grounds for affirmance. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with Troester.
Each party shall bear its own costs on appeal.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
The Honorable Jed S. Rakoff, United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 .
We assume familiarity with the facts and procedural history of this case.