United States Ninth Circuit

In a class action on behalf of all technicians employed by defendant to install alarms in customers' cars, in which plaintiff sought compensation for the time technicians spent commuting to worksites in defendant's vehicles and for time spent on preliminary and postliminary activities performed at their homes, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed in part where: 1) pursuant to the Employment Commuter Flexibility Act, use of an employer's vehicle to commute was not compensable even if it was a condition of employment; and 2) the conditions defendant placed on plaintiff's use of its vehicle did not make his commute compensable. However, the judgment is vacated in part where, on summary judgment, the district court could not determine that plaintiff's postliminary activities were not integral to plaintiff's principal activities.

Appellate Information

• Argued 02/04/2009
• Decided 03/02/2010
• Published 03/02/2010

Judges

• Before:  CYNTHIA HOLCOMB HALL, BARRY G. SILVERMAN and CONSUELO M. CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States Ninth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Matthew Righetti and John Glugoski (argued) of the Righetti Law Firm of San Francisco, CA, for the plaintiffs-appellants.


• For Appellees:
  
• Peter D. Holbrook, Dan Chammas (argued) and Jennifer Fercovich of McDermott Will & Emery LLP of Los Angeles, CA, for the defendant-appellee.