UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

GEORGE HUERTA, an No. 21-16201 individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated D.C. No. and as a representative 5:18-cv-06761-BLF plaintiff, Plaintiff-Appellant, ORDER v. CERTIFYING QUESTIONS TO CSI ELECTRICAL THE SUPREME CONTRACTORS, INC., COURT OF Defendant-Appellee, CALIFORNIA

and FIRST SOLAR, INC.; CALIFORNIA FLATS SOLAR LLC; CA FLATS SOLAR 130, LLC; CA FLATS SOLAR 150, LLC; CAL FLATS SOLAR CEI, LLC; CAL FLATS SOLAR HOLDCO, LLC; MILCO NATIONAL CONSTRUCTORS, INC.; CALIFORNIA COMPACTION CORPORATION, Defendants. 2 HUERTA V. CSI ELEC. CONTRACTORS

Filed July 8, 2022

Before: Sandra S. Ikuta, Jacqueline H. Nguyen, and John B. Owens, Circuit Judges.

Order

SUMMARY *

California Law

The panel certified to the Supreme Court of California the following questions:

(1) Is time spent on an employer’s premises in a personal vehicle and waiting to scan an identification badge, have security guards peer into the vehicle, and then exit a Security Gate compensable as “hours worked” within the meaning of California Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order No. 16?

(2) Is time spent on the employer’s premises in a personal vehicle, driving between the Security Gate and the employee parking lots, while subject to certain rules from the employer, compensable as “hours worked” or as “employer-mandated

* This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader. HUERTA V. CSI ELEC. CONTRACTORS 3

travel” within the meaning of California Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order No. 16?

(3) Is time spent on the employer’s premises, when workers are prohibited from leaving but not required to engage in employer-mandated activities, compensable as “hours worked” within the meaning of California Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order No. 16, or under California Labor Code Section 1194, when that time was designated as an unpaid “meal period” under a qualifying collective bargaining agreement?

ORDER

We respectfully ask the Supreme Court of California to exercise its discretion to decide the certified questions set forth in section II of this order.

I. Administrative Information

We provide the following information in accordance with California Rule of Court 8.548(b)(1). The caption of this case is:

No. 21-16201

GEORGE HUERTA, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly 4 HUERTA V. CSI ELEC. CONTRACTORS

situated and as a representative plaintiff, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

CSI ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS, INC., Defendant-Appellee

and

FIRST SOLAR, INC.; CALIFORNIA FLATS SOLAR LLC; CA FLATS SOLAR 130, LLC; CA FLATS SOLAR 150, LLC; CAL FLATS SOLAR CEI, LLC; CAL FLATS SOLAR HOLDCO, LLC; MILCO NATIONAL CONSTRUCTORS, INC.; CALIFORNIA COMPACTION CORPORATION, Defendants.

The names and addresses of counsel for the parties are:

For Plaintiff-Appellant George Huerta: Lonnie C. Blanchard, III, 177 E Colorado