BRIAN NEWTON V. PARKER DRILLING MGMT. SVCS., No. 15-56352 (9th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this CaseThis opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on February 5, 2018.
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 23 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT BRIAN NEWTON, an individual, Plaintiff-Appellant, No. 15-56352 D.C. No. 2:15-cv-02517-RGK-AGR v. PARKER DRILLING MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LTD., Erroneously Sued As Parker Drilling Management Services, Inc., ORDER* Defendant-Appellee, and PARKER DRILLING MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC., a Nevada Corporation, Defendant. 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 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. 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
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
