Eric Chavez, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CONVERSE, INC., a Delaware corporation

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ERIC CHAVEZ, an individual and on behalf
of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CONVERSE, INC., a Delaware corporation
Defendant - Appellee,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 17-17070
D.C. No. 5:15-cv-03746-NC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Nathanael M. Cousins, Magistrate Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted June 14, 2019
Pasadena, California
Before: SCHROEDER and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and RAKOFF, ** District
Judge.
Converse requires its retail employees to undergo “off the clock” exit
inspections every time they leave the store. Seeking compensation for these exit
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The Honorable Jed S. Rakoff, United States District Judge for the
Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.
FILED
JUN 28 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
inspections, plaintiff Eric Chavez brought the instant class action on behalf of
himself and similarly situated Converse employees. The District Court granted
summary judgment for Converse, holding the Chavez’s claims were barred by the
federal de minimis doctrine, which precludes recovery for otherwise compensable
amounts of time that are small, irregular, or administratively difficult to record.
The California Supreme Court subsequently held in Troester v. Starbucks Corp.,
421 P.3d 1114 (Cal. 2018), that the federal de minimis doctrine does not apply to
wage and hour claims brought under California law.1
For substantially the reasons given in the related case, Rodriguez v. Nike
Retail Services, Inc., No. 17-16866, we hold that the District Court erred in
granting summary judgment based on the federal de minimis doctrine. We likewise
hold that on the current record there are no alternative grounds for affirmance.
Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with
Troester.
Each party shall bear its own costs on appeal.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
1 We assume familiarity with the facts and procedural history of this case.

-- 2 of 2 --