Dilts
Dilts v. Penske Logistics LLC
Opinion
Opinion
Sammartino, J.
ORDER:
(1) GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE, (2) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE, AND (3) GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
(ECF Nos. 108, 93, 87)
Presently before the Court are Defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment and Plaintiffs’ motion to strike several Declarations submitted by Defendant in support of its motion for summary judgment, as well as Plaintiffs request for judicial notice. Having considered the parties’ arguments and the law, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs request for judicial notice, DENIES Plaintiffs’ motion to strike and evidentiary objections AS MOOT, and GRANTS Defendant’s motion for summary judgment.
BACKGROUND
This case arises out of Penske’s alleged failure to provide lunch and rest breaks, pay overtime compensation, reimburse business expenses, and pay wages due to its employees. (See Class Cert. Order 1, ECF. No. 72.) On April 26, 2010, the Court certified this case as a class action (ECF No. 72.) The class consists of “349 hourly appliance delivery drivers and installers in California who were assigned to its state-wide Whirlpool account.” (Class Cert. Order 4.)