Isaias Hernandez, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Bci Coca-Cola Bottling Company

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ISAIAS HERNANDEZ, individually, and
on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
BCI COCA-COLA BOTTLING
COMPANY,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 12-56055
D.C. No. 2:11-cv-09484-SVW-SS
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Stephen V. Wilson, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted February 10, 2014
Pasadena, California
Before: FARRIS, N.R. SMITH, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Having reviewed the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment de novo,
Rocky Mountain Farmers Union v. Corey, 730 F.3d 1070, 1086 (9th Cir. 2013), we
affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment to BCI Coca-Cola Bottling
FILED
FEB 18 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

-- 1 of 3 --

Company (“BCI”) and denial of Isaias Hernandez’s motion for partial summary
judgment.
“We review de novo the district court’s interpretation of state law.” Fourth
Inv. LP v. United States, 720 F.3d 1058, 1066 (9th Cir. 2013). California Labor
Code § 226(a) requires an employer to provide its employees with accurate,
itemized wage statements “showing” (among other things) total hours worked
during the pay period, hourly rates in effect during the pay period, and the hours
worked at those rates.
Wage statements comply with § 226(a) when a plaintiff employee can
ascertain the required information by performing simple math, using figures on the
face of the wage statement. See Morgan v. United Retail Inc., 113 Cal. Rptr. 3d 10,
19 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010). Here, Hernandez need only subtract his regular hours
from total hours to determine overtime hours worked during the pay period.
Similarly, he can add the two component overtime rates to determine his overall
overtime rate. Moreover, Hernandez demonstrated in his deposition that he could
interpret his wage statements without assistance.
Contrary to Hernandez’s argument, McKenzie v. Fed. Express Corp., 765 F.
Supp. 2d 1222 (C.D. Cal. 2011) does not control here. The McKenzie wage
statements, splitting the overtime rate into component parts, did not provide a line
2

-- 2 of 3 --

item for total hours worked. Id. at 1226. BCI’s statements provided such a line
item, allowing Hernandez to do the math to determine the § 226(a)-required
information.
Because BCI’s wage statements complied with § 226(a), the district court
properly granted summary judgment to BCI on (1) Hernandez’s Private Attorney
General Act claim alleging § 226(a) violations, and (2) Hernandez’s § 226(e)
statutory penalties claim. For the same reason, the district court properly denied
Hernandez’s motion for partial summary judgment.
Hernandez’s motion for class certification is moot. AFFIRMED.
3

-- 3 of 3 --