Being an armored car driver is no doubt an extremely stressful job. You're driving around in a truck full of money, for heaven's sake. There's a reason why caper movies so often feature armored truck robbery scenes.

So I get that for the drivers, a 30-minute mid-day break would be nice—a chance to unwind, eat a sandwich, maybe even catch a little cat nap.

Except then there's an unattended truck full of money. It's kind of a problem.

On Tuesday, a Los Angeles County Superior Court judge rebuffed a would-be class action by armored car drivers who complained that they don't get a 30-minute (unpaid) off-duty break for a meal.

It's a nice win for security services company Garda and its legal team led by Malcolm Heinicke from Munger, Tolles & Olson, plus Keith Jacoby and Robert Blumberg from Littler Mendelson, even if it feels like a no-duh kind of decision. (The judge in a separate ruling also tossed overtime claims.)

California law requires employers to give employees either an unpaid half-hour off-duty for a meal, or else a paid half-hour while on duty, if the nature of the work prevents taking a break. (Or, if you're like me, you just eat at your desk all day long.)

The armored car drivers get the on-duty, paid-half hour.

It's not as if the plaintiffs don't understand why. As one driver admitted, he “couldn't clock out and go away from the truck and leave the money on the truck.”

While in uniform, the driver said he has to be constantly vigilant whenever he leaves the vehicle. Even if he just “went into, say, McDonalds to get a Coke,” he said that he has to be on alert so no one could use him as “a hostage to try to get into the truck.”

Gulp.

Still, the plaintiffs offered several suggestions how they could get a real break, like maybe if there were three guards per truck instead of two?

But Judge William Highberger (who was a partner at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher before he became judge in 1998) pretty much annihilated that idea.

“If each member of a three-person team was dropped off while the others continued the route (eventually looping back to pick him up), that [driver] would be a particularly prone target who would need to remain alert, especially since he would have no partner monitoring him and even minimal casing would lead thieves to know that the armored vehicle would come back in 30 minutes to retrieve him,” he wrote.

Plus, it would wreak havoc with the routes.

Aside from the whole thing being a bad idea, the judge also noted that “California law does not require employers to restructure their basic operations to permit off-duty meal periods.”

Um, well, what if the drivers changed or covered up their uniforms when they went on break?

“[T]hieves surveilling the armored vehicle are not likely to be fooled into thinking that a plaintiff exiting the vehicle is not a departing [driver] simply because he is trying to cover his uniform,” Highberger wrote. “Moreover, there is no disguising an armored vehicle.”

The plaintiffs also suggested they could get their off-duty breaks by parking their armored vehicles in police station parking lots or other safe spots.

So yeah, a few problems there too.

The plaintiffs “offer no evidence to suggest police forces of other third parties would be willing to host a crime target on their premises while those charged with protecting that target went on a break.”

Oh. Well, when you put that way…

Moreover, Highberger noted, “Any time the armored vehicle is parked, the risk of armed attack increases, and this risk would increase even more if the vehicle was parked for a full 30 minutes as part of its scheduled route.”

I'm feeling like if he wasn't a judge, Highberger could have an alternate career as a security consultant. He seems to have a better handle on all this than the drivers do.

Let's just say the next time I have some gold bullion to move, I'm calling him for a game plan.  

 

Survey Says…

Don't panic (yet) but a new survey of in-house counsel doesn't bode well for law firm litigators.

According to Exterro's 2018 In-House Legal Benchmarking Report, companies said they “were far more likely to perform most of their litigation services in-house than last year. Almost 70 percent of legal teams conducted most of their litigation services in-house compared to 50 percent last year—while increasing satisfaction with these services.”

The result comes even as this year's report includes more respondents from organizations with fewer than 25,000 people—who you'd think would be less likely to have the ability to handle litigation services on a DIY basis.

Such services include legal holds, matter intake, data collection/processing, document review, depositions and managing budgets.

Exterro, which designs software for in-house legal and IT teams, teamed up with the Association of Certified E-Discovery Specialists to survey 110 people—attorneys, paralegals, general counsel, legal directors, and IT professionals.

For more on the survey and its results, see Legal Departments Are Insourcing More Litigation Work Than Ever Before

 

What I'm Reading

As Abrams Fights for Runoff With Kemp in Georgia, Litigation Is on the Table

Democratic gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams' campaign said Wednesday that with less than 16,000 ballots needed to force a runoff with her Republican opponent, Secretary of State Brian Kemp, her path to collect every outstanding vote could include litigation.

In USS Cole Case, $315M Hinges on Justices Finding the Right Address

Did injured sailors and families of the 2000 USS Cole bombing give proper notice of their lawsuit to the Republic of Sudan eight years ago?

LA Judge Reinstates $131M Patent Award–Then Doubles It to $268M for Willfulness

The win goes to the Alfred E. Mann Foundation for Scientific Research and its licensee, Advanced Bionics, represented by Michael Lyon of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius.

Katyal Tells Appeals Panel US AG Can't Hit Cities Over 'Sanctuary' Policies

The Hogan Lovells partner argued that the attorney general may not withhold federal grant money because of the city's immigration policies.

South Florida Lawyers Block a $19.9M Suit Against a Miami Dolphins Doctor

A Miami-Dade jury found that the team's head orthopedic surgeon did not derail former Miami Dolphins wide receiver Otis J. McDuffie's football career by allowing him to return to the field for the second half of a game in 1999 against the New England Patriots.

Working Pro Bono for Trump, Rudy Giuliani in Divorce Proceedings Says He Can't Afford Wife's Expenses

Poor Rudy Giuliani.

In case you missed it…

Daily Dicta: Nothing Like a Fight Over Dinosaur Bones to Put Things in Perspective

How often does a judge get to decide an issue of first impression from the Mesozoic Era?