Dilts

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment of their class claim for failure to provide meal breaks. [Doc. No. 335.] Plaintiffs contend that Penske did not have a meal break policy compliant with California law thereby entitling the class to a finding of liability as a matter of law. The motion has been fully briefed and the Court finds it suitable for determination on the papers submitted and without oral argument in accordance with Civil Local Rule 7.1(d)(1). Having considered the submissions of the parties and the arguments therein, the motion is DENIED.

I. Introduction

The plaintiff class is composed of Defendant’s hourly employees who delivered and installed Whirlpool appliances in California. An employee team, consisting of a driver with a commercial driver’s license and installers, would pick up the appliances from the Penske facility and deliver and install them at off-site locations. Work shifts were of sufficient length to require at least a first meal break and could be of sufficient length to require a second meal break.

*1018 The employees worked in the field without direct supervision. Although…