Scott v. Maersk
Filed 8/30/06 Scott v. Maersk CA4/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE
| JOHN F. SCOTT et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. MAERSK, INC., et al., Defendants and Respondents. | G035746 (Super. Ct. No. 03CC11352) O P I N I O N |
Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, David C. Velasquez, Judge. Affirmed.
Harris & Kaufman, William E. Harris and Matthew A. Kaufman, for Plaintiffs and Appellants.
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, Andrew C. Peterson and Jyll A. Lottner, for Defendants and Respondents.
This is an appeal from an order that denied a motion for class certification. John F. Scott, Rowdy A. C. Russell, Ric T. Aschbrenner, and Philip J. Crisfield (collectively, Scott) brought this action against Maersk, Inc., APM Terminals Pacific, Ltd., and APM Terminals North America, Inc. (collectively, Maersk), for unpaid overtime and related claims. Scott argues the trial court applied improper criteria, made erroneous legal assumptions, and the order is not supported by the evidence. We cannot agree, and so affirm.
* * *
Scott, Russell, and Aschbrenner are former employees of Maersk, and Crisfield is an employee. Maersk is an international shipping company that operates container terminals at various ports, including Los Angeles and Oakland. The individual plaintiffs worked or work at the Los Angeles terminal. All held or hold the position of assistant marine manager (AMM).
The instant action was filed after Scott, Russell and Aschbrenner were fired. The complaint was brought on behalf of all current and former AMMs in Los Angeles and Oakland.[1] Four class action claims are set out. The first is the claim for overtime pay. The complaint alleges AMMs are subject to a regulatory wage order that requires payment of overtime for work beyond 8 hours a day or 40 hours a week, and they were routinely required to work shifts and weeks that qualified for overtime pay. It alleges there is an â€
