Practice Groups

Case Summary

Jackson DeMarco Tidus Peckenpaugh ("JDTP") represents Los Angeles Police Officer Cesar Mata in the lawsuit, Mata v. City of Los Angeles, et al. ("Mata"). The Mata lawsuit was filed on behalf of current and former officers holding the rank of Patrol Officer, Motor Officer, Detective, Sergeant and Lieutenant (the "Officers") and asserts that the Los Angeles Police Department required the Officers to work overtime without compensation in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and California Labor Code and in breach of the Officers' employment agreement.

The Mata lawsuit contends that the City of Los Angeles failed to properly compensate the Officers at a regular, premium or overtime rate for all hours worked. The lawsuit asserts that the City failed to pay the Officers for time spent outside of their regularly scheduled shifts performing pre- and post-shift activities, which are an integral and indispensable part of their principal work performed for the benefit of the City. These required activities include:

• Donning and doffing of safety equipment
• Preparing, reviewing and completing arrest reports
• Making copies of reports and forwarding them to the appropriate individuals and entities
• Preparing for inspections
• Accessing department computers to complete administrative tasks
• Inspecting all equipment, weapons, vehicles and materials
• Briefing and debriefing at shift changes
• Collecting, returning, cleaning and maintaining equipment and uniforms
• Preparing for court testimony
• Preparing for shifts by performing other specific tasks required by defendants
• And other required tasks

Officers who hold supervisory positions have additional required pre- and post-shift activities resulting from their supervisory roll, including:

• Determining deployment of officers prior to roll call
• Assessing and determining assignments of officers to public and non-public functions
• Preparing for roll call training
• Preparing for roll call by distributing items in the subpoena and other folders
• Briefing others with supervisory authority regarding incidents or other daily activities
• And other required tasks

The Mata lawsuit also asserts that the City of Los Angeles failed to properly compensate the Officers for the time spent working through meal and rest periods, as well as walking and travel time, as the Officers move to and from activities, work areas, stations, briefing rooms, equipment rooms, posts and patrol vehicles.

The Mata lawsuit is the ninth lawsuit that has been filed against the Los Angeles Police Department addressing wage and hour issues. It comes on the heals of a District Court ruling in a similar LAPD overtime lawsuit, in which the court denied the City its key defense claims and reaffirmed our position that these activities are required and performed for the benefit of the City, and as such the officers should be properly compensated.

On Monday October 1, 2007, the U.S. District Court, Central District of California, issued its ruling in regard to several motions for summary judgment in the case of Vucinich v. City of Los Angeles, in which JDTP represents the officer plaintiff and which has similar claims to the Mata lawsuit. Significantly, the court's decision in Vucinich addressed a number of legal issues including walking time, missed Code 7s (meal periods), safety equipment and various other pre- and post-shift activities, including dress up/dress down time. The District Court denied several of the City's key defense claims in their motion for summary judgment. As a result, the officer's claims in Vucinich will proceed to trial.

Additionally, JDTP represents approximately 2,200 Los Angeles Police Officers in Alaniz, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al. ("Alaniz") which has similar FLSA overtime claims for missed Code 7s and uncompensated pre- and post-shift activities. The opt-in period for officers to join the Alaniz lawsuit ended on June 5, 2007. Over 200 Los Angeles Police Officers interested in joining the Alaniz lawsuit have contacted JDTP after the court specified opt-in period ended. The filing of the Mata lawsuit will allow these and other Officers to seek compensation for all of their hours worked for the benefit of the City.

If you are now or were formerly a Patrol Officer, Motor Officer, Detective, Sergeant or Lieutenant with the Los Angeles Police Department and worked under similar circumstances, you can download the appropriate opt-in documents to join the Mata lawsuit below.

Court Documents

Complaint and Demand for a Jury Trial; October 18, 2007

Adobe Acrobat Reader is required to view PDF files. This is a free program available from the Adobe Web site.

Related Cases

Alaniz, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, U.S. District Court Case No. CV 04-8592 GAF (JWJx)
Batts, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, U.S. District Court Case No. SACV-06-843 CJC (RNBx)
Brehm, et al.  v. City of Los Angeles, et al., U.S. District Court Case No. CV 02-4979 JFW (JWJx)
Huff v. Bernard Parks and City of Los Angeles, U.S. District Court Case No. CV 98-10245-WDK (RCx)
Kimpell v. City of Los Angeles, U.S. District Court Case No. CV 93-3441 GHK (RNBx)
Lara v. City of Los Angeles, et al., U.S. District Court Case No. CV 02-8811 JFW (JWJx)
Nolan, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, U.S. District Court Case No. CV 03-2190 GAF (AJWx)
Vucinich v. City of Los Angeles, U.S. District Court Case No. CV 06-00249 RSWL (CWx)

Similar Cases

Abbe, et al. v. City of San Diego, et al.; Case # 3:05-CV-01629 DMS(RBB) 2005
Edwards v. City of Long Beach; Case # 2:05-CV-08990 ABC(PLAx) 2005
Lockhart v. County of Los Angeles; Case # CV-071680 ABC (PJWx) 2007
Reed v. County of Orange; Case # 8:05-CV-01103 CJC(ANx) 2005
Tran, et al. v. San Diego County Superior Court, County of San Diego, et al.; Case # 07-CV-1683 IEG (JMA)