Burnside

Burnside v. Kiewit Pacific Corp.

Good Law
491 F.3d 1053·2007 WL 1760747
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJune 19, 200704-57134California11,329 words

Opinion

Opinion

Berzon, J.

The named plaintiffs in this case (whom we will call “Burnside,” for the first named plaintiff) represent approximately 270 former and current employees of defendant Kiewit Pacific Corporation (“Kiewit”). Burnside alleges that Kiewit never compensated the employees for time they spent traveling from designated meeting sites to their jobsites and from those job-sites back to the designated meeting sites. Kiewit, Burnside further alleges, required them to undertake this round trip daily; they were not allowed to get to the job-sites on their own. This appeal requires us to decide a single question: Whether the employees’ claims, brought under state law, are preempted by section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA), 29 U.S.C. § 185 (a). We hold that they are not, reverse the district court’s decision to the contrary, and remand with instructions to remand to the Superior Court of San Diego County.

I

A

Robert Burnside, Francisco Gomez, Ray Arnett, Charles Lingenfelter, Ron Crues, and Charles Williams, along with approximately 265 additional members of a putative class, are all current and former Kiew-it employees. Over a four-year period that began around October 2000…

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.