Armida Ruelas v. County of Alameda

Good Law
108 F.4th 1208
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJuly 26, 202421-16528California1,608 words

Opinion

Opinion

Sidney R. Thomas, J.

FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ARMIDA RUELAS; DE’ANDRE No. 21-16528

EUGENE COX; BERT DAVIS;

KATRISH JONES; JOSEPH D.C. No. MEBRAHTU; DAHRYL LAMONT 4:19-cv-07637-

REYNOLDS; MONICA MASON; JST

LUIS NUNEZ-ROMERO; SCOTT

ABBEY,

OPINION

Plaintiffs-Appellees,

v.

COUNTY OF ALAMEDA;

GREGORY J. AHERN; ARAMARK

CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, LLC,

Defendants-Appellants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Jon S. Tigar, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted October 17, 2022 Submission Withdrawn November 1, 2022 Resubmitted June 11, 2024 San Francisco, California Filed July 26, 2024

Before: Sidney R. Thomas and Milan D. Smith, Jr., Circuit Judges, and George H. Wu, * District Judge.

Opinion by Judge Sidney R. Thomas

SUMMARY **

Detainees/Minimum Wage

The panel reversed the district court’s order denying defendants’ motion to dismiss claims brought by a putative class of non-convicted individuals who work or worked without pay for a private company, Aramark Correctional Services, LLC…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.