University Attended:
University of Southern California, B.A., 1985
Law School Attended:
Southwestern University School of Law, J.D., 1989
Year of First Admission:
1990
Admission:
1990, California; 1990, U.S. District Court, Central District of California; 1991, U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit; 1992, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California; 1992, U.S. District Court, Southern District of California; 1996, U.S. Supreme Court; 2005, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California
Memberships:
Los Angeles County (Member, Sections on: Business Law, Labor Law, Litigation, Real Property, Panel Member) and San Fernando Valley (Panel Member) Bar Associations; State Bar of California (Member, Sections on: Litigation, Business Law, Law Office Management); The Association of Trial Lawyers of America; Aviation Insurance Association; American Association for Justice; Attorney Fee Arbitrators; Encino Chamber of Commerce (Member, Board of Directors, Co-Chair, 2008); Greater San Fernando Valley Chamber of Commerce.
Languages:
Spanish and English
Reported Cases:
Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro - 138 S. Ct. 1134 (2018)
[U.S. Supreme Court]
"
RULE: Because the Fair Labor Standards Act gives no textual indication that its exemptions should be construed narrowly, there is no reason to give them anything other than a fair, rather than a narrow, interpretation.
FACTS: Respondents, current and former service advisors for petitioner Encino Motorcars, LLC, sued petitioner for backpay, alleging that petitioner violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) by failing to pay them overtime. Petitioner moved to dismiss, arguing that service advisors are exempt from the FLSA’s overtime-pay requirement under 29 U. S. C. §213(b)(10)(A), which applies to “any salesman, partsman, or mechanic primarily engaged in selling or servicing automobiles, trucks, or farm implements.” The District Court agreed and dismissed the suit. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed. It found the statute ambiguous and the legislative history inconclusive, and it deferred to a 2011 Department of Labor rule that interpreted “salesman” to exclude service advisors. This Court vacated the Ninth Circuit's judgment, holding that courts could not defer to the procedurally defective 2011 rule, Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro, 579 U. S. ___, 136 S. Ct. 2117, 195 L. Ed. 2d 382, (Encino I), but not deciding whether the exemption covers service advisors. On remand, the Ninth Circuit again held that the exemption does not include service advisors.
ISSUE: Were automobile dealership's service advisors exempt from general Fair Labor Standards Act (29 U.S.C.S. § 201 et seq.) overtime-pay requirements under 29 U.S.C.S. § 213(b)(10)(A), which exempted any salesman primarily engaged in selling or servicing automobiles?
ANSWER: Yes.
CONCLUSION: The court held that automobile service advisors were exempt from the FLSA overtime requirement because they were salesmen primarily engaged in servicing cars since they sold customers services for their vehicles and they were also primarily engaged in servicing cars since they were integral to the servicing process as they met customers, suggested and sold repair and maintenance services, and followed up as the services were performed. Although service advisors did not spend most of their time physically repairing cars, 29 U.S.C.S. § 213(b)(10)(A) was not so constrained, and use of the disjunctive word "or" to join "selling" and "servicing" suggested that the exemption covered a salesman primarily engaged in either activity. There was no reason to construe FLSA exemptions narrowly, and neither an agency handbook nor the FLSA's legislative history supported a contrary interpretation."
Source: https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/casebrief/p/casebrief-encino-motorcars-llc-v-navarro
Certifications:
Board Member University of Southern California (USC) CEO Network, Awarded multiple City of Los Angeles Volunteer Service Certificates, AV® Preeminent™ Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review Award, 20-Year, America’s Most Honored Lawyers 2020 – The American Registry, 2011 San Fernando Valley Business Journal Award – Valley’s Most Trusted Advisors (Lawyers), California State Senate passed California Senate Resolution Number 355 honoring Mr. Steinberg (March, 2012), Recipient of President George W. Bush Volunteer Service Award, Awarded United Chambers of Commerce Small Business Award, Recipient of multiple United States of America Congressional Certificates, Awarded multiple California State Assembly Service Certificates, Recipient of multiple California State Legislature Service Certificates, Judge for New Venture Seed Competition at University of Southern California (USC) Marshall School of Business (Lloyd Greif Center for Entrepreneurial Studies), Former Adjunct Law Professor at Los Angeles Valley College Paralegal Academy, Valley Presbyterian Hospital Foundation Board of Directors, President Encino Chamber of Commerce 2011 and 2016, Board Member, Encino Neighborhood Council, 2011 – 2014, Los Angeles Department of Recreation and Parks – Park Advisory Board Member (Reseda Park), 2011 to present, Former Board Member of Providence Tarzana Hospital Foundation, Board Member/Past President’s Council Encino Chamber of Commerce 2008 – present, Panel Member of Fee Arbitrators for County Bar Association
Distinguished: An excellent rating for a lawyer with some experience. This rating indicates the attorney is widely
respected by their peers for high professional achievement and ethical standards.
Notable: This rating indicates that the lawyer has been recognized by a large number of their peers for strong ethical standards.
