MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

JOSEPH F. BATAILLON, Senior District Judge.

This matter is before the Court on the defendant's motion for partial summary judgment, Filing No. 243 in 8:14CV319; Filing No. 149 in 8:15CV287; and Filing No.112 in 8:17cv145. These are consolidated class actions for alleged violations of Nebraska and California wage and hour laws. This Court has jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d) ("CAFA").

Defendants Werner Enterprises, Inc., and Drivers Management, LLL (collectively, "Werner or defendant"), move for summary judgment on the meal and rest break claims under California law. Werner relies on a recent Federal Motor Carrier Standards Administration ("FMCSA") ruling that California's meal- and rest-break rules ("MRB Rules"), Cal. Lab, Code §§ 226.7, 512, 516; 8 C.C.R. § 11090, are preempted and unenforceable "with respect to drivers of property-carrying [commercial motor vehicles] subject to FMCSA's [Hours of Service ("HOS")] rules." See California's Meal and Rest Break Rules for Commercial Motor Vehicle Drivers; Petition for Determination of Preemption, 83 Fed. Reg. 67470-1, 2018 WL 6809341 (Dec. 28, 2018) ("FMCSA Order").

The validity and effect of the FMCSA order is presently on appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in several consolidated cases. See Int'l Brotherhood of Teamsters, et al v. FMCSA, No. 18-73488 (9th Cir.) (Lead); IBT, et al v. FMCSA, et al, No. 19-70323 (9th Cir.) (Consolidated); Labor Comm'r State of Cal. v. FMCSA, No. 19-70329 (9th Cir. Consolidated); Duy Ly, et al v. FMCSA, et al, No. 19-70413 (9th Cir.) (Consolidated). Under 49 U.S.C. § 31141(f) and 28 U.S.C. § 2342(3)(A), federal appeals courts have exclusive jurisdiction to enjoin, set aside, suspend, or determine the validity of FMCSA preemption determinations.

Those actions have been fully briefed and are being considered for oral argument in June, July, or August of this year. See Int'l Brotherhood of Teamsters, et al v. FMCSA, No. 18-73488, Filing No. 89 (9th Cir. Feb. 7, 2020). The deadline for filing motions to dismiss and motions for summary judgment in this case is April 2, 2021. It thus appears that deferring judgment on this motion will not delay progression of the case. Because the Ninth Circuit's determination will likely be dispositive of the issue presented in the defendant's motion, the Court will defer ruling on the motion at this time. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the defendant's motions for summary judgment (Filing No. 243 in 8:14CV319; Filing No. 149 in 8:15CV287; and Filing No. 112 in 8:17cv145) are denied without prejudice to reassertion.