FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 12 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NOE SOLIS GARCIA, No. 13-15325
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:11-cv-02047-LB
And
MEMORANDUM*
ERNESTO SANTANA,
Plaintiff,
v.
MARIO BANA, DBA Ideal RV & Trailer
Supply; NANCY BANA, DBA Ideal RV
& Trailer Supply,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Laurel D. Beeler, Magistrate Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 9, 2015**
San Francisco California
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Before: McKEOWN, MURGUIA, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Noe Solis Garcia and Ernesto Santana filed a wage and hour action against
Mario and Nancy Bana d/b/a/ Ideal RV & Trailer Supply (“Ideal RV”), alleging a
number of claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 207 (“FLSA”),
and California law. The parties consented to proceed before the magistrate court
and following a one-day bench trial, the court entered judgment in favor of Ideal
RV.1 Garcia raised six causes of action in his complaint, but he appeals only the
trial court’s determination that Garcia failed to prove he worked overtime for
which Ideal RV did not pay him. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291,
and affirm.
1. We reject Garcia’s argument that the trial court committed legal error under
Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery, 328 U.S. 680 (1946). Garcia argues that because
he testified that he worked six days a week and was never compensated for his
overtime work, the trial court was required to credit this testimony and “analyze[]
whether the hours claimed by Plaintiff are reasonable in light of the evidence on
[sic] the records [sic].” Garcia misreads the law. Regardless of whether Ideal RV
kept accurate payroll records, to succeed in his overtime claims Garcia “‘has the
1
Before trial, plaintiffs’ counsel stipulated to dismiss with prejudice all of
Santana’s claims. Only Garcia’s claims proceeded to trial.
2
burden of proving that he performed work for which he was not properly
compensated.’” Brock v. Seto, 790 F.2d 1446, 1447–48 (9th Cir. 1986) (quoting
Anderson, 328 U.S. at 686–87). After evaluating the testimony presented at
trial—and finding that Garcia provided less-than-credible testimony—the trial
court made the factual finding that Garcia’s Saturday work was not overtime work
because although “Garcia occasionally or often worked on Saturdays, . . . when he
did he had taken off a day during the week.” Based on this determination, the
court concluded that Garcia failed to meet his burden under Anderson. This was
not legal error.
2. We likewise reject Garcia’s contention that the trial court erred because the
court “did not give Plaintiff’s testimony much weight” and “gave full credence” to
the testimony of other witnesses. The trial court was tasked with resolving any
conflicts in the evidence, see Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979) (noting
that it is the responsibility of the trial of fact “to resolve conflicts in the testimony,
to weigh the evidence, and to draw reasonable inferences from basic facts to
ultimate facts”), and thus, the court was free to disregard Garcia’s vague and
evasive testimony, see Brennan v. Elmer’s Disposal Serv., Inc., 510 F.2d 84, 88
(9th Cir. 1975) (“The credibility of witnesses is best determined by the judge at
trial.”). Garcia, therefore, fails to establish that the trial court’s findings were
3
clearly erroneous. See Lentini v. California Ctr. for the Arts, Escondido, 370 F.3d
837, 843 (9th Cir. 2004) (“Following a bench trial, the judge’s findings of fact are
reviewed for clear error.”).2
AFFIRMED.
2
In the reply brief, Garcia’s counsel questions the trial judge’s motive for
ruling in the defendants’ favor. Although these spurious speculations had no
bearing on our decision in this matter, we note that they are entirely inappropriate.
Indeed, the record makes clear that the trial court diligently weighed all of the
evidence presented by the parties before rendering judgment.
4