What are independent contractors vs. employees?

Useful Rulings on Independent Contractors vs. Employees

Recent Rulings on Independent Contractors vs. Employees

ACOSTA VS. LARGO CONCRETE, INC.

However, just because defendants hired someone as an independent contractor does not mean that as a matter of law that person was an independent contractor rather than an employee.

  • Hearing

    Dec 04, 2020

ROCHEL DISI VS TAD TANOURA M D ET AL

On the other hand, plaintiff makes several arguments relevant to this discussion, some of them seemingly in conflict with each other, as follows as identified by plaintiff’s headings: (1) there is an issue of fact whether Tanoura was an employee of Regents/UCLA; (2) there is an issue of fact whether Tanoura was a joint employee of Regents/UCLA and County; (3) there is an issue of fact whether Tanoura was an independent contractor; (4) immunity does not extend to employees; (5) Tanoura was an ostensible agent

  • Hearing

    Dec 01, 2020

JOE RELEFORD VS POSTMATES INC, ET AL.

Defendant Postmates knowingly miscategorized Plaintiff as an independent contractor to further a scheme of refusing to properly train and supervise drivers making deliveries. (FAC, ¶ 16.) Defendant Postmates knew it was extraordinarily unsafe for Plaintiff to complete deliveries on a motorcycle. (FAC, ¶ 17.) The Court finds insufficient facts have been alleged to state an action for willful misconduct. It is unclear how Defendant Postmates engaged in willful misconduct.

  • Hearing

    Nov 24, 2020

JOE RELEFORD VS POSTMATES INC, ET AL.

There are no facts showing Defendant Postmates knew that an injury was probable from Plaintiff’s use of a motorcycle or Defendant Postmates decision label Plaintiff as an independent contractor. Thus, the demurrer is properly sustained as to the willful misconduct cause of action. CONCLUSION The demurrer is SUSTAINED as to the second and third causes of action with 20 days leave to amend. Defendant Postmates is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

  • Hearing

    Nov 24, 2020

FRANCISCO RAMOS VS LUIS R FIGUEROA ET AL

Defendants first argue that they owed no duty to Plaintiff because he was an independent contractor rather than an employee. This is not a case of vicarious liability, i.e., a case in which Plaintiff’s alleged negligence caused harm to a subcontractor, who then sued Defendants as the hiring party. (See Privette v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 689; Tverberg v. Fillner Construction, Inc. (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 1439.)

  • Hearing

    Nov 20, 2020

LEE VS WILKINS

In reply, Plaintiff explained that she is not bringing a direct misclassification claim, but rather wanted to clarify that her FEHA and retaliation claims are meant to apply to her entire employment with Defendants, even when they classified her as an independent contractor. In addition, Plaintiff notes that the facts to support this clarification of the claims were included in the original complaint and thus would relate back to the original complaint.

  • Hearing

    Nov 19, 2020

GREG BISEL VS EFD USA, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

(Technijian), for which he is an independent contractor. EFD USA is in the business of leasing motion picture and television equipment to motion picture and television production companies filming in Europe, Mexico, and South America. Teran is EFD USA’s CEO and President, and Ruiz is an EFD USA employee. In 2012, Plaintiff met Teran in connection with EFD USA’s interest in obtaining equipment leases.

  • Hearing

    Nov 16, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

CAUDILLO VS WERMERS CORPORATION

Code, § 3200 et seq.) shields an independent contractor from tort liability to its employees, applying the peculiar risk doctrine to the independent contractor's employees would illogically and unfairly subject the hiring person, who did nothing to create the risk that caused the injury, to greater liability than that faced by the independent contractor whose negligence caused the employee's injury. (5 Cal.4th at pp. 698-700.)." Hooker v.

  • Hearing

    Nov 12, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

WAFA BITAR, ET AL. VS EMANATE HEALTH, A CALIFORNIA NONPROFIT PUBLIC BENEFIT CORPORATION, DBA CITRUS VALLEY HEALTH PARTNERS, INC., ET AL.

Williams was not an employee or an agent, but rather an independent contractor with staff privileges; (3) Dr. Williams was not an ostensible agent of Defendant; (4) Defendant was not an owner, operator, or manager of Dr. Williams’s practice and did not participate in, authorize, and/or direct his conduct; and (5) Daoud’s lack of consortium claim fails because Defendant did not act negligently towards Plaintiff.

  • Hearing

    Nov 12, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

HASHEM BAREKZAI VS CHEMICAL TRANSFER COMPANY, INC.

In other words, answering the independent contractor question on a class-wide basis does not benefit the court or the parties if individual questions predominate in Plaintiff’s claims under the Labor Code. Reimbursement Subclass This subclass is defined as “All truck drivers who leased trucks from Defendant Chemical Transfer Company, Inc.

  • Hearing

    Nov 10, 2020

  • Judge Jayne Lee
  • County

    San Joaquin County, CA

VARELA VS GONZALEZ

Triable issues of material fact exist as to whether MJB Wood is liable for the conduct of Gonzalez, who is an independent contractor, based on the special risk of harm involved with the work the independent contractor was hired to do. MJB’s Request for Judicial Notice is denied. The matter for which MJB seeks judicial notice was not material to the Court’s analysis. The Court overrules MJB objections 1 and 2 to Plaintiff’s evidence and sustains objections 3-6. a.

  • Hearing

    Nov 10, 2020

SHEILA POWELL VS BEHAVIOR SUPPORT SOLUTIONS

On April 9, 2018 Defendant hired Plaintiff as a Behavior Therapist, but misclassified her as an independent contractor. In June 2018 Defendant announced its intention to convert some independent contractor positions to employees. Defendant told Plaintiff it would change her classification to employee status on August 6, 2018. On July 24, 2018 Defendant’s HR told Plaintiff that the start date of her classification would be on July 23, 2018.

  • Hearing

    Nov 10, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

MOJGAN ESAGOFF, ET AL VS 621 RODEO DRIVE LLC, ET AL

The general rule is that an employer or hirer of an independent contractor is not liable for the negligence of the contractor or its employees. “The exceptions to this rule, however, are numerous.” (American States Ins. Co. v. Progressive Casualty Ins. Co. (2009) 180 Cal.App.4th 18, 28.) One of those exceptions is the peculiar risk doctrine. (Id.) Defendants, in reply, argue that Plaintiffs have not alleged any facts supporting peculiar risk liability.

  • Hearing

    Nov 06, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

JOHN DAUPHINEE V. BRADLEY DRATNOL

Moreover, that case was determined at summary judgment, and the Court found that the carrier, not Rite Aid, controlled the execution of the services based on the contracts between the parties, which showed that the carrier was Rite Aid’s independent contractor, not its partner. (Alaubali, supra, 320 Fed.Appx. at p. 767.) At this stage, the Court must accept all material facts pleaded as true.

  • Hearing

    Nov 05, 2020

CITIZENS OF HUMANITY, LLC VS NICK LACY

Where the declaratory relief claim is not superfluous of Lacy’s wage claim, and where it is undisputed that there exist triable issues of material facts as to whether Lacy was an employee or independent contractor of COH, the Motion for Summary Adjudication of the first cause of action is DENIED.

  • Hearing

    Nov 05, 2020

  • Judge

    Lori Ann Fournier or Olivia Rosales

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

ZRP GROUP LLC VS CHRIS TENNBERG

The crux of the complaint is the allegation that Plaintiff employed Tennberg as an independent contractor to design and launch websites for its business, and subsequently employed Tennberg as an employee in similar capacity. Plaintiff terminated Defendant’s employment when Plaintiff learned Defendant had hijacked its websites to display a message demanding that Plaintiff pay Defendant for design services and engaged in other similar social media based conduct.

  • Hearing

    Nov 05, 2020

SILBERG V. WRIGHT

Plaintiff argues that he must be an employee because the job at issue in this case required a license and a person requiring a license to perform a task, who does not have one, cannot be an independent contractor.

  • Hearing

    Nov 03, 2020

  • Judge

    Gary Nadler via Zoom

  • County

    Sonoma County, CA

CURTIS NUTALL VS MOON LIGHTING LOGISTICS INC., ET AL.

Plaintiffs show good cause for production of these documents, because ownership of the vehicles is a factor in determining independent contractor vs. employee status. Defendant does not address this RPD in opposition to the motion. The motion is therefore granted. m. Protective Order Plaintiffs indicate, in their moving separate statement, that they are willing to enter into an appropriate protective order with respect to some of the documents at issue.

  • Hearing

    Nov 03, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

First Cause of Action: Misclassification Mansour alleges that she was misclassified as an independent contractor (by being paid a portion of her wages as an independent contractor) when she was an employee. (FAC, ¶ 33.) Mansour alleges that as a direct result of the misclassification, she has suffered monetary damages, including, but not limited to, loss of wages, salary, bonuses, and benefits, including, but not limited to, retirement savings, life, and medical/health insurance. (FAC, ¶ 34.)

  • Hearing

    Nov 03, 2020

FAHERTY V. SEWELL

The remodel construction contract provides: “Contractor agrees to perform the work as an independent contractor and not as an agent, employee, or servant of Owner.

  • Hearing

    Oct 30, 2020

PICCOLO VS GOJUMP OCEANSIDE LLC [E-FILE]

Border Transportation: "'Dynamex did not purport to replace the Borello standard in every instance where a worker must be classified as either an independent contractor or an employee for purposes of enforcing California's labor protections." (California Trucking Assn. v. Su (9th Cir. 2018) 903 F.3d 953, 959, fn. 4.)

  • Hearing

    Oct 30, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

PICCOLO VS GOJUMP OCEANSIDE LLC [E-FILE]

Border Transportation: "'Dynamex did not purport to replace the Borello standard in every instance where a worker must be classified as either an independent contractor or an employee for purposes of enforcing California's labor protections." (California Trucking Assn. v. Su (9th Cir. 2018) 903 F.3d 953, 959, fn. 4.)

  • Hearing

    Oct 30, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

JAMES GRIGGS V. THE MOUNTAIN WINERY, ET AL.

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (2002) 27 Cal.4th 219, the California Supreme Court considered a forklift accident and held: “when a hirer of an independent contractor, by negligently furnishing unsafe equipment to the contractor, affirmatively contributes to the injury of an employee of the contractor, the hirer should be liable to the employee for the consequences of the hirer’s own negligence.”

  • Hearing

    Oct 29, 2020

NELSON PALLAROSO VS COMPLETE AUTOMOTIVE SERVICES INC.

Tender Heart Home Care Agency, LLC (2019) 31 Cal.App.5th 232, in which plaintiff, a caregiver, sued Tender Heart, a caregiver placement agency, who in turn alleged that plaintiff was an independent contractor. The Court found that there were triable issues of material fact regarding whether Tender Heart controlled plaintiff’s wages and whether its ability to decline to make additional client referrals was the equivalent to terminating an employee. (Id. at p. 257.) Obey also cites to Castaneda v.

  • Hearing

    Oct 29, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

JOSE GUADALUPE RAMOS VS ICO BUILDERS, INC., ET AL.

Plaintiff also alleged causes of action for misclassification as an independent contractor. Plaintiff asserts each of his wage and hour causes of action stems from the allegation Defendants misclassified him and his coworkers as independent contractors, denied them statutory rest periods, and failed to accurately compensate them for overtime pay. (Stipulation ¶2; Decl. of Geshgian ¶4.)

  • Hearing

    Oct 28, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 44     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we load this page.