Cluster 3199646

Corbin v. Time Warner Ent.- Advance/Newhouse P’ship, 821 F.3d 1069, 1085 (9th Cir. 2016) (“If the [] claim is without merit as applied to [the individual], it follows that the district court need not inquire as to whether that meritless claim should form the basis of a class action.”).

See Boone, 2018 WL 1189338 , at *9 (“Plaintiff cannot defeat summary judgment on her rounding claim by having the Court focus solely on Plaintiff’s time entries” (emphasis in original)); Corbin, 821 F.3d at 1077 (“If the rounding policy was meant to be applied individually to each employee to ensure that no employee ever lost a single cent over a pay period, the regulation would have said as much.”).

Rutti, 596 F.3d at 1059 ; cf. Corbin, 821 F.3d at 1082 (“Indeed, the scarcity of examples to which Corbin can refer indicates that this practice does not occur with ‘regularity.’”).

Sept. 26, 2019); see also Corbin, 821 F.3d at 1077 (“If the rounding policy was meant to be applied individually to each employee to ensure that no employee ever lost a single cent over a pay period, the regulation would have said as much.”); Boone, 2018 WL 1189338 , at *9 (concluding that an underpayment of $82 over the course of 26 months is a de minimis amount).

See Corbin v. Time Warner Entm’t-Advance/Newhouse P’ship, 821 F.3d 1069, 1085 (9th Cir. 2016) ( “[A] district court need not inquire as to whether [a] meritless claim should form the basis of a class action.”).

Corbin, 9 821 F.3d 1069 , 1081–82 (9th Cir. 2016) (“[Defendant] would have to double-check four time 10 stamps (clocking in/out for work; clocking in/out for lunch) for each employee on each day on the 11 off-chance that an employee accidentally loaded an auxiliary program like AAD before loading 12 Avaya/Kronos.”).

Ohio Sept. 4, 2025) (citing Corbin v. Time Warner Ent.- Advance/Newhouse P’ship, 821 F.3d 1069, 1075 (9th Cir. 2016)).

Sept. 26, 2019) (quoting Corbin v. Time Warner Ent.-Advance/Newhouse P’ship, 821 F.3d 1069, 1077 (9th Cir. 2016)).

To prove that a rounding policy did not operate neutrally, a plaintiff “cannot cherry-pick a pay period or two; the rounding policy must ‘average out in the long-term.’” Laverenz, 2024 WL 3887110 , at *11 (quoting Corbin v. Time Warner Entm't-Advance/Newhouse P'ship, 821 F.3d 1069, 1077 (9th Cir. 2016)).

Corbin v. Time Warner Ent.- 5 Advance/Newhouse P’ship, 821 F.3d 1069, 1076 (9th Cir. 2016) (citing Alonzo v. Maximus, Inc., 6 832 F. Supp. 2d 1122, 1126 (C.D.

Yet “[o]ften[,] evidence that a particular consequence or fact is de minimis will not be evident from the face of the complaint, but will only emerge with discovery.” Corbin v. Time Warner Ent.-Advance/Newhouse P’ship, 821 F.3d 1069, 1080 (9th Cir. 2016) (not treating the de minimis doctrine as an affirmative defense, in tension with statements in Cadena and Rutti that the employer bears the burden of proving time de minimis).

Yet “[o]ften[,] evidence that a particular consequence or fact is de minimis will not be evident from the face of the complaint, but will only emerge with discovery.” Corbin v. Time Warner Ent.-Advance/Newhouse P’ship, 821 F.3d 1069, 1080 (9th Cir. 2016) (not treating the de minimis doctrine as an affirmative defense, in tension with statements in Cadena and Rutti that the employer bears the burden of proving time de minimis).

(ECF No. 48 at 4 (citing Corbin v. Time Warner 15 Entertainment-Advance/Newhouse P’ship, 821 F.3d 1069, 1077 (9th Cir. 2016).) Defendant 16 argues that because the examples of underpayment provided in the SAC are limited to two pay 17 periods and the SAC is otherwise silent as to the impact of Defendant’s rounding policy on the 18 other pay periods, Plaintiff has not sufficiently pleaded allegations that would establish or allow 19 the reasonable inference that Defendant’s r…

See Houston v. Saint Luke’s Health Sys., Inc., 76 F.4th 1145, 1150 (8th Cir. 2023); Aguilar v. Mgmt. & Training Corp., 948 F.3d 1270, 1288 (10th Cir. 2020); Corbin v. Time Warner Entm't- Advance/Newhouse P'ship, 821 F.3d 1069, 1075 (9th Cir. 2016).

(ECF No. 26-1 at 8 (citing Corbin v. Time Warner Entertainment- 14 Advance/Newhouse P’ship, 821 F.3d 1069, 1077 (9th Cir. 2016).) Defendant also argues Plaintiff 15 failed to address specific deficiencies the Court identified in its prior order dismissing this claim, 16 including that Plaintiff must allege facts demonstrating there was at least one workweek or one 17 specific instance in which Defendant violated Plaintiff’s rights under Landers v. Quality 18 Commc’ns, Inc., …

If a claim is without merit as applied to the named plaintiffs, a “district court need not inquire as to whether that meritless claim should form the 3 basis of a class action.” Corbin v. Time Warner, Entm’t-Advance/Newhouse P’ship, 821 F.3d 1069, 1085 (9th Cir. 2016) (collecting cases). 3.

Under California law, an employer is permitted to adopt a rounding policy 15 so long as it is “fair and neutral on its face and ‘it is used in such a manner that it will not result, 16 over a period of time, in failure to compensate the employees properly for all the time they have 17 actually worked.’” See’s Candy, 210 Cal. App. 4th at 907 (quoting 29 C.F.R. 18 § 785.48); see also Sali, 909 F.3d at 1009 ; Corbin v. Time Warner Entm’t-Advance/Newhouse 19 P’ship, 821 F.3d 106…

Corbin v. Time Warner Ent.-Advance/Newhouse 20 P’ship, 821 F.3d 1069, 1082 (9th Cir. 2016) (rejecting the argument that employer “could 21 ascertain the exact log-in/out times by scouring its computer records” because “the de minimis 22 doctrine is designed to allow employers to forego just such an arduous task” (emphasis 23 omitted)). 1 The irregularity of the additional work also weighs against finding the time is more than 2 de minimis.

In response, Leprino argues that these 20 policies did not improperly round out compensable time because the employees were not required 21 to work and were not under Leprino’s control during the time leading up to the start of their shifts. 22 Under California law, an employer is permitted to adopt a rounding policy so long as it is 23 “fair and neutral on its face and ‘it is used in such a manner that it will not result, over a period of 24 time, in failure to compensate t…

Stated differently, a valid rounding policy must be “neutral, both facially and as applied.” Aguilar v. Mgmt. & Training Corp., 948 F.3d 1270, 1288 (10th Cir. 2020) (quoting Corbin, 821 F.3d at 1076 (internal citations omitted)). 3.

In other words, a valid rounding policy must be “neutral, both facially and as applied.” Corbin v. Time Warner Entm’t- Advance/Newhouse P’ship, 821 F.3d 1069, 1075 (9th Cir. 2016) (quotation and citation omitted).

See Feltzs, 2021 WL 5050259 at *7 (distinguishing the 0.28% aggregate 3 reduction in hours from the situation in David because the evidence showed the class as a whole 4 was undercompensated during the class period “with an alleged undercompensation of more than 5 nine thousand hours of wages”); cf. Corbin, 821 F.3d at 1079 (finding a rounding policy to be 6 neutral as applied to the plaintiff without evaluating the data as to the rest of the class).

Cal. 2007).) See Corbin 5 v. Time Warner Ent.-Advance/Newhouse P’ship, 821 F.3d 1069, 1079 (9th Cir. 2016) (“If a party 6 seeks to assert an affirmative defense, the party ‘must affirmatively state’ that defense in a 7 responsive pleading.” (quoting Fed.

(Doc. 7-1 at 15.) WinCo cites several cases in the Ninth 28 Circuit and California state courts upholding neutral rounding policies if the rounding policy “on 1 average, favors neither overpayment nor underpayment.” Corbin v. Time Warner Entertainment, 2 821 F.3d 1069, 1076 (9th Cir. 2016) (internal quotations omitted). 3 Garza contends these cases, all decided on a motion for summary judgment, have no 4 bearing whether the complaint satisfies Rule 8.

Federal regulation permits rounding as long as “it will not result, over a period of time, in failure to compensate the employees properly for all the time they have actually worked.” Corbin v. Time Warner Entm't-Advance/Newhouse P'ship, 821 F.3d 1069, 1075 (9th Cir. 2016); see also Corbin v. Time Warner Entm't- Advance/Newhouse P'ship, 821 F.3d 1069, 1075 (9th Cir. 2016) (noting that federal regulation has endorsed use of rounding for over 50 years).

(ECF No. 159.1 at 4-6.) 9 One of the hazards of seeking summary judgment on these affirmative defenses7—which 10 neither side’s briefs address—is that in order to assert an affirmative defense later in the case, the 11 party must have “‘affirmatively state[d]’ that defense in a responsive pleading.” Corbin v. Time 12 Warner Entertainment-Advance/Newhouse P’ship, 821 F.3d 1069, 1080 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting 13 Fed.

No. 134 at 23 (citing Corbin v. 11 Time Warner Entm’t-Advance/Newhouse P’ship, 821 F.3d 1069, 1077-83 (9th Cir. 2016), and 12 See’s Candy Shops, Inc. v. Superior Court, 210 Cal. App. 4th 889, 910-13 (2012)).

(ECF Nos. 77-1 at 24-29, 77-2 at 24-29.) Plaintiff counters that 16 because Defendants raised only the executive exemption as an affirmative defense in 17 their answer, all other exemptions are waived.8 (ECF No. 79 at 19-20.) Defendants 18 claim that they are permitted to raise additional exemption arguments for the first time at 19 summary judgment because Plaintiff does not plead that he would be prejudiced by 20 their inclusion.9 (ECF Nos. 83 at 30, 84 at 29-30.) 21 “If a…

P. 8(c)(1); Corbin v. Time Warner Entm’t- 11 Advance/Newhouse P’ship, 821 F.3d 1069, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2016); Walton v. City of Red Bluff, 12 2 Cal.App.4th 117, 131 (1991).

Prior to class certification, if it is found that the defendants are entitled to summary 14 judgment on the named plaintiffs’ individual claims, “there is no further action for the district 15 court to take.” Corbin v. Time Warner Ent.-Advance/Newhouse P’ship, 821 F.3d 1069, 1085 (9th 16 Cir. 2016).

The Court will nevertheless note that, should these meetings be found to be compensable, both the text of the applicable FLSA regulations and the test adopted by the Ninth and Tenth Circuits interpreting these regulations indicate this policy would violate the FLSA. 4 See Corbin v. Time Warner Entertainment- Advance/Newhouse P’ship, 821 F.3d 1069, 1076-1077 (9th Cir. 2016) (holding that 4 At this time, these are the only two circuits that have formally addressed this issue. …

AFFIRMED. 2 Far from being reversable error, resolving dispositive motions before turning to class certification, as the district court did here, is typically the “the proper course to follow.” Corbin v. Time Warner Entm’t-Advance/Newhouse P’ship, 821 F.3d 1069, 1085 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting Boyle v. Madigan, 492 F.2d 1180, 1182 (9th Cir. 1974)). 4

It ‘rounds all employee time punches to the nearest quarter-hour without an eye towards whether the employer or the employee is benefitting from the rounding.’ ” (AHMC Healthcare, Inc. v. Superior Court (2018) 24 Cal.App.5th 1014, 1027 (AHMC), quoting Corbin v. Time Warner Entertainment- Advance/Newhouse Partnership (9th Cir. 2016) 821 F.3d 1069, 1078-1079 (Corbin).) “Employers use rounding policies to calculate wages efficiently; sometimes, in any given period, employees co…

“For more than fifty years, a federal regulation has endorsed the use of ‘Rounding’ practices.” Corbin v. Time Warner Entm’t–Advance/Newhouse P’ship, 821 F.3d 1069, 1075 (9th Cir. 2016) (internal quotation marks omitted).

“The federal rounding rules have long been applied to federal claims brought pursuant to the FLSA.” Corbin v. Time Warner Entertainment-Advance/Newhouse Partnership, 821 F.3d 1069, 1075-76 (9th Cir. 2016).

Nelnet relies on Corbin v. Time Warner Ent.-Advance/Newhouse P’ship, 821 F.3d 1069, 1082 (9th Cir. 2016), which the court finds instructive. [#168 at 26].

Nelnet relies on Corbin v. Time Warner Ent.-Advance/Newhouse P’ship, 821 F.3d 1069, 1082 (9th Cir. 2016), which the court finds instructive. [#168 at 26].

"If an employer's rounding practice does not permit both upward and downward rounding, then the system is not neutral and 'will ... result, over a period of time, in failure to compensate the employees properly for all the time they have actually worked.' " Corbin at 1077 (quoting 29 C.F.R. § 785.48 (b) ).

(E.g., AHMC Healthcare, Inc. v. Superior Court (2018) 24 Cal.App.5th 1014, 1023-1024 (AHMC Healthcare) [rounding to nearest quarter hour]; Silva v. See's Candy Shops, Inc. (2016) 7 Cal.App.5th 235, 249 (See's Candy II) [rounding to nearest 10th of an hour]; Corbin v. Time Warner Entertainment–Advance/Newhouse Partnership (9th Cir. 2016) 821 F.3d 1069, 1076 (Corbin) [rounding to nearest quarter hour].) Indeed, earlier this year, in Troester, supra, 5 Cal.5th 829 , our Supreme…

(E.g., AHMC Healthcare, Inc. v. Superior Court (2018) 24 Cal.App.5th 1014, 1023-1024 (AHMC Healthcare) [rounding to nearest quarter hour]; Silva v. See's Candy Shops, Inc. (2016) 7 Cal.App.5th 235, 249 (See's Candy II) [rounding to nearest 10th of an hour]; Corbin v. Time Warner Entertainment–Advance/Newhouse Partnership (9th Cir. 2016) 821 F.3d 1069, 1076 (Corbin) [rounding to nearest quarter hour].) Indeed, earlier this year, in Troester, supra, 5 Cal.5th 829 , our Supreme…

As to the latter argument, “the district court need not inquire as to whether [a] meritless claim should form the basis of a class action.” Corbin v. Time Warner Entm’t-Advance/Newhouse P’ship, 821 F.3d 1069, 1085 (9th Cir. 2016).

Corbin v. Time Warner Entm’t-Advance/Newhouse P’ship, 821 F.3d 1069, 1081, n.11 (9th Cir. 2016) (holding one minute of off-the-clock work to be de minimis such that a California Labor Code claim for inaccurate wage statements failed).

See Corbin v. Time Warner Ent.-Advanced/Newhouse P’ship, 821 F.3d 1069 , 1075 n.3 (9th Cir. 2016) (“[W]e will not ordinarily consider matters on appeal that are not specifically and distinctly argued in appellant’s opening brief.” (simplified)). 5 25-383 temporary judge.

See Corbin v. Time Warner Ent.- Advance/Newhouse P’ship, 821 F.3d 1069 , 1075–76 (9th Cir. 2016).

See Corbin v. Time Warner Ent.-Advance/Newhouse P’ship, 821 F.3d 1069 , 1075 n.3 (9th Cir. 2016) (“[W]e ‘will not ordinarily consider matters on appeal that are not 2 specifically and distinctly argued in appellant’s opening brief.’” (quoting Miller v. Fairchild Indus., 797 F.2d 727 , 738 (9th Cir.1986))). 2.

See Corbin v. Time 7 Warner Entm't-Advance/Newhouse P'ship, 821 F.3d 1069, 1076 (9th Cir. 2016) cited in Rapp v. Forest City Techs., Inc., No 1:20-cv-2059 2021 WL 2982005 , *4 (N.D.

Accord Corbin v Time Warner Entertainment-Advance/Newhouse P’ship, 821 F.3d 1069, 1086 (9th Cir. 2016) (if claim was without merit as applied to plaintiff, it followed that the district court need not inquire as to whether that meritless claim should form the basis of a class action).

If so, “the time is working time,” id., and a valid rounding policy must be “neutral, both facially and as applied,” so that the employee is compensated for it, Aguilar v. Mgmt. & Training Corp., 948 F.3d 1270, 1288 (10th Cir. 2020); see Corbin v. Time Warner Entertainment- Advance/Newhouse P’ship, 821 F.3d 1069, 1075 (9th Cir. 2016).

(David v. Queen of Valley Medical Center (2020) 51 Cal.App.5th 653 , 664-665; AHMC Healthcare, supra, 24 Cal.App.5th at pp. 1028-1029.) In one case, the court observed that the federal standard does not require that a rounding policy “work out neutrally for every employee.” (AHMC Healthcare, at p. 1022; accord Corbin v. Time Warner Entm’t- Advance/Newhouse P’ship (9th Cir. 2016) 821 F.3d 1069, 1077 [rejecting the argument 21 that every employee must “gain[] or break[] even o…

Third, the California Supreme Court has stated that “ ‘ “[a]bsent convincing evidence of the IWC’s intent to adopt the federal standard for determining whether time . . . is compensable under state law, [the court has] decline[d] to import any federal standard, which expressly eliminates substantial protections to employees, by implication.” [Citation.]’ ” (Troester, supra, 5 Cal.5th at p. 839 .) Here, the federal regulation that authorizes rounding requires only that the ro…