Ormeno v. Pasha Automotive Services

Background

Pasha Automotive Services operated an automobile cargo terminal on Pier 80 under a contract with the City and County of San Francisco. Pasha received, processed, and stored automobiles before they were loaded onto cargo ships. Henry Ormeno and Miguel Rivera, who worked at the facility, sued Pasha alleging violations of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and San Francisco’s prevailing-wage ordinance.

The plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment—a request for judgment on part of a case without a trial. They asked the court to decide whether their work was covered by section 21C.3 of the San Francisco Administrative Code. The order did not decide the plaintiffs’ remaining wage claims.

The Ordinance

Section 21C.3 requires contracts for operating a “public off-street parking lot, garage, or storage facility for automobiles” on property owned or leased by San Francisco to require payment of the prevailing wage. The ordinance also lists workers who perform tasks such as washing, polishing, lubricating, rental-car service, parking, and cashiering.

Pasha argued that its facility was not “public” because members of the general public could not access the operation. The court relied on the ordinance’s definition, which says a public automobile storage facility is one operated on property owned or leased by San Francisco. That definition does not require public access. The court therefore held that the Pier 80 facility was public under the ordinance because it operated on city-owned property.

Pasha also argued that the facility was not an “automobile storage facility.” The court acknowledged that the ordinance did not define that phrase, but found that storage was a significant part of Pasha’s operations. Pasha’s contract described storage as one of its functions, and the plaintiffs’ unrebutted declarations stated that vehicles commonly remained at Pier 80 for one to three days or longer, while recalled vehicles could remain there for many months. The declarations also described Ormeno and Rivera performing tasks identified in the ordinance, including parking vehicles.

Ruling

The court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment. It ruled that Pasha operated a public automobile storage facility within the meaning of section 21C.3 and that Pasha’s employees at Pier 80 were protected by San Francisco’s prevailing-wage ordinance. The court scheduled a further case-management conference to discuss the next steps in the case.