The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sandra M. Snyder United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER CLARIFYING ISSUES REMAINING FOR TRIAL
On August 8, 2011, the District Court entered its order on Defendant's motion for summary judgment, or in the alternative, summary adjudication, and Plaintiffs' motion for summary adjudication. Doc. 158. In an Amended Joint Scheduling Report filed January 4, 2012 (Doc. 165), the parties disagreed about which of Plaintiffs' claims remained for adjudication at trial following the summary judgment order.
In the scheduling report, "Plaintiffs contend[ed] that the County has failed to compensate Plaintiffs for the time spent performing work including but not limited to, the cleaning and maintenance of required uniforms, safety gear and department issued firearms, the non-shift time spent off engaged in meeting firearms qualifications required by the County and various duties occurring before and after the Plaintiffs' shifts, including the preparation of reports and paperwork, keeping abreast of relevant time sensitive information via telephone, voicemail and County issued email accounts, supervising and drafting of evaluations of deputies participating in field training programs and preparing for briefing periods that take place at the beginning of each shift." Doc. 165 at 2-3. Plaintiffs contend[ed] that these activities are integral and indispensable of the primary duties of law enforcement required of plaintiffs and similar situated employees." In their February 28, 2012 letter brief (Doc. 167), Plaintiffs contended that the remaining claims were (1) firearms qualification and maintenance; (2) cleaning and maintenance of required uniforms and safety gear; and (3) the various duties performed before and after their shifts.
According to Defendant, "[t]he only remaining claim in Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint that was not disposed of by Defendant's motion for Summary Judgment is Plaintiffs' claim that they are entitled to compensation for firearms qualifications and maintenance of weapons on off-duty hours." Doc. 165 at 3-4.
The Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 27) identified four issues:
11. Defendant COUNTY OF FRESNO has failed to compensate Plaintiffs and similarly situated employees for the time it takes to don and doff uniforms and required protective safety gear, as those activities are integral and indispensable to the primary duties of law enforcement required by Plaintiffs and similarly situated employees.
12. Defendant COUNTY OF FRESNO has failed to compensate Plaintiffs and similarly situated employees for the time spent performing work, including, but not limited to, the cleaning and maintenance of required uniforms, safety gear, vehicles, and Department-issued firearms that are integral and indispensable to the primary duties of law enforcement required of Plaintiffs and similarly situated employees.
13. Defendant COUNTY OF FRESNO has failed to compensate Plaintiffs and similarly situated employees for the time spent traveling to and from work in Sheriff's Office marked patrol vehicles during which time the Plaintiffs are required to log in to the Sheriff's office Dispatcher and are required to, and frequently do, respond to calls for assistance while en route to and from work.
14. Plaintiff Deputy Sheriff JAMES EPPERLY and similarly situated employees, who are Deputy Bailiffs assigned to work at the County's courthouses, routinely work through either a half hour or one hour meal period during which they remain in uniform, maintain radio contact, are subject to call backs for service, are frequently interrupted by citizens requesting information or assistance, and are required to respond to on view criminal activity without compensation.
Memorandum Decision on Summary Judgment
The memorandum decision on the summary judgment motions addressed the issues of this case in light of the then recently decided case, Bamonte v. City of Mesa, 598 F.3d 1217, 1220 (9th Cir. 2010). The District Court granted the County's summary judgment motion on the donning and doffing claims (complaint paragraph 11), commuting time claims (complaint paragraph 13), vehicle maintenance claims (complaint paragraph 12, in part), and meal break claims (complaint paragraph 14). The District Court denied the County's summary judgment on Plaintiffs' claims for compensation for off-duty time spent on firearms qualification and maintenance, finding the existence of "a factual dispute regarding whether the County actually permits officers to submit overtime requests for off-duty weapons qualification, notwithstanding its stated policy" discouraging off-duty weapons qualification, although it may be approved in certain cases, since officers generally have sufficient time to complete firearms qualification while on ...