Litvinova v. The City and County of San Francisco

Background

The plaintiffs sought reconsideration of an earlier order granting summary judgment to the City and County of San Francisco. Summary judgment is a decision entered without a trial when the court determines that no genuine dispute about an important fact requires a jury trial and that one party is entitled to judgment under the law. The plaintiffs invoked Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e) and 60(b), arguing that the earlier decision contained clear factual or legal errors or caused manifest injustice.

The court decided the motion without oral argument and vacated the hearing that had been set for September 15, 2022.

Issues Raised

The plaintiffs identified three alleged factual disputes: whether the nurses' pay was structured as a salary or hourly employment; whether the City's dual-status system was a legitimate payroll system or a nefarious plot; and whether deductions from the plaintiffs' pay were proper.

They also identified three alleged legal errors: whether the City met its burden of proof, whether 29 C.F.R. § 541.604(b) applied, and whether the earlier order failed to address certain legal issues.

Court's Analysis

The court explained that reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy that generally cannot be used to reargue matters already addressed or present arguments that could have been made earlier. Relief requires circumstances such as newly discovered evidence, clear error, manifest injustice, or an intervening change in controlling law. The court also described Rule 60(b)(6) as a limited provision allowing relief for another reason that justifies it, used sparingly to prevent manifest injustice.

The court rejected the plaintiffs' contention that the record required a trial on whether the nurses were salaried. It stated that the memorandum of understanding's references to hourly pay concerned extra pay for certain shifts, while the memorandum also contained a salary section describing a normal work schedule. The court further stated that the nurses' classification as nonexempt reflected overtime provisions, and that clocking in and out did not establish that they were paid hourly because the City could not pay them for time they did not work.

The court found no specific evidence showing that nurses' schedules had been cut. It characterized a declaration relied on by the plaintiffs as vague, unsubstantiated, and contradicted by the record. In the court's view, the declaration provided at most a very small amount of evidence that did not create a genuine factual dispute.

The court also held that the plaintiffs' reliance on payroll labels, hours worked, personal-leave deductions, and compensatory time did not establish that the nurses were not salaried. It relied on regulations concerning public-agency pay systems and stated that the mere existence of memorandum provisions allowing certain deductions, without specific evidence of improper deductions in practice, did not show a violation of the salary-basis requirement.

The court rejected the plaintiffs' argument that 29 C.F.R. § 541.604(b) applied, explaining that the regulation's reasonable-relationship requirement applies only when pay is computed on an hourly, daily, or shift basis. It also rejected the plaintiffs' remaining arguments that the salary needed to be contractually guaranteed or that the earlier order failed to address relevant issues.

Disposition

Judge Richard Seeborg concluded that the plaintiffs' disagreement with the earlier factual and legal analysis was not a basis for reconsideration. He found that the plaintiffs had not shown that the earlier decision was erroneous or unjust and denied the plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration of the judgment and order.