Huerta v. First Solar, Inc., a Delaware corporation

Background

The Ninth Circuit remanded the case to the district court on May 30, 2024, and issued its mandate on June 21, 2024. After a case-management conference, the court directed CSI to file one motion describing all of its requests for additional dispositive motions. CSI then sought permission to file a post-appeal motion for summary judgment on four claims.

CSI argued that a recent California Supreme Court decision had substantially changed the law underlying its earlier summary-judgment motions. The court agreed that the law had changed and said a new motion would be appropriate where CSI could plausibly argue that the issues could be resolved on undisputed material facts.

Claims 1, 2, 3, and 4

For Claim 1, the exit-badge-out claim, the California Supreme Court had held that Huerta should be paid for the time required to badge out at the end of the workday. CSI argued that undisputed evidence showed Huerta was paid for all time spent driving to the badge-in gate. Huerta challenged the authenticity and reliability of CSI expert Keith Mendes’s declaration but did not identify disputed facts in his opposition or objection. The court granted CSI’s motion for leave to file a post-appeal summary-judgment motion on Claim 1 and directed the parties to complete necessary discovery.

Claim 2 concerned whether Huerta had to be paid the minimum wage for meal periods during which he could not leave his work area. CSI argued that, although a rule confined Huerta to his work area, he was not prevented from engaging in any activity during the meal period. Huerta argued that genuine disputes of material fact existed concerning the restrictions imposed on him and other workers. The court denied CSI’s motion for leave to file a post-appeal summary-judgment motion on Claim 2 because the facts were disputed.

Claim 3 concerned whether travel time on the Access Road was compensable under Wage Order No. 16, section 5(A). CSI argued that the Phase 2 Badging Gate existed only for security purposes and that Huerta’s time there was extremely limited. Huerta did not dispute that the gate’s only purpose was security, but argued that security was an employment-related purpose beyond merely accessing the worksite. The court granted CSI’s motion for leave to file a post-appeal summary-judgment motion on Claim 3.

Claim 4 concerned waiting-time and inadequate-wage-statement claims. CSI relied on a recent California Supreme Court decision concerning whether penalties are owed when a good-faith dispute existed when wages were due. CSI argued that it had relied on earlier court decisions and had previously succeeded in showing that the penalties were not owed. Huerta argued that CSI could have raised its good-faith defenses in its earlier summary-judgment motions. The court found that the recent change in law and the absence of identified factual disputes gave CSI a reasonable basis to seek summary judgment and granted leave on Claim 4.

Ruling

Judge Elizabeth Labson Freeman granted in part and denied in part CSI’s motion for leave to file a post-appeal motion for summary judgment. The court allowed the motion as to Claims 1, 3, and 4 and denied it as to Claim 2. The court emphasized that it was not deciding whether CSI could meet its burden on summary judgment or whether Huerta could present evidence of factual disputes.

The court limited the future motion and opposition to fifteen pages each and the reply to eight pages. The briefing could address only whether summary judgment should be granted on the three claims for which leave was granted. The parties were ordered to meet and confer and submit a stipulated briefing schedule within 14 days, taking account of Huerta’s necessary discovery. The court also vacated the November 25, 2024 hearing date.