Brian Newton, an individual v. PARKER DRILLING MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LTD., Erroneously Sued As Parker Drilling…

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BRIAN NEWTON, an individual,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
PARKER DRILLING MANAGEMENT
SERVICES, LTD., Erroneously Sued As
Parker Drilling Management Services,
Inc.,
Defendant-Appellee,
and
PARKER DRILLING MANAGEMENT
SERVICES, INC., a Nevada Corporation,
Defendant.
No. 15-56352
D.C. No.
2:15-cv-02517-RGK-AGR
ORDER*
On Remand from the United States Supreme Court
Before: PAEZ, BERZON, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Brian Newton sued his former employer, Parker Drilling, in California state
court for wage and hour violations under California law. Parker removed the case
FILED
JUL 23 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

-- 1 of 2 --

to federal district court and moved for judgment on the pleadings. The district
court granted Parker’s motion, concluding that under the Outer Continental Shelf
Lands Act, 43 U.S.C. §§ 1331–1356b (“OCSLA”), the Fair Labor Standards Act
(“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. § 201 et. seq., is a comprehensive statutory scheme that
leaves no room for state law to address wage and hour grievances. Newton
appealed, and we vacated and remanded. Newton v. Parker Drilling Mgmt. Servs.,
881 F.3d 1078, 1081–82 (9th Cir. 2018). Parker petitioned for writ of certiorari,
which the Supreme Court granted. Parker Drilling Mgmt. Servs. v. Newton, 139 S.
Ct. 914 (2019).
The Supreme Court’s opinion issued on June 10, 2019. Parker Drilling
Mgmt. Servs. v. Newton, 139 S. Ct. 1881 (2019). In accordance with the Court’s
opinion, we affirm the district court’s order dismissing Newton’s California law
minimum wage and overtime claims. Because our opinion did not analyze
Newton’s other state-law claims and held that Newton should be given leave to
amend his complaint, the Supreme Court vacated and remanded the case to us.
We, in turn, VACATE and REMAND to the district court for further proceedings
consistent with the Court’s opinion.
2

-- 2 of 2 --