Noe Garcia v. Mario Bana

Good Law
597 F. App'x 415
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMarch 12, 201513-15325California602 words

Opinion

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

Noe Solis Garcia and Ernesto Santana filed a wage and hour action against Mario and Nancy Bana d/b/a/ Ideal RV & Trailer Supply (“Ideal RV”), alleging a number of claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 207 (“FLSA”), and California law. The parties consented to proceed before the magistrate court and following a one-day bench trial, the court entered judgment in favor of Ideal RV. Garcia raised six causes of action in his complaint, but he appeals only the trial court’s determination that Garcia failed to prove he worked overtime for which Ideal RV did not pay him. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and affirm.

1. We reject Garcia’s argument that the trial court committed legal error under Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery, 328 U.S. 680 , 66 S.Ct. 1187 , 90 L.Ed. 1515 (1946). Garcia argues that because he testified that he worked six days a week and was never compensated for his overtime work, the trial court was required to credit this testimony and “analyze! ] whether the hours claimed by Plaintiff are reasonable in light of the evidence on [sic] the records [sic].” Garcia misreads the law. Regardless of whether Ideal RV kept accurate payroll…

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.