What are independent contractors vs. employees?

Useful Rulings on Independent Contractors vs. Employees

Recent Rulings on Independent Contractors vs. Employees

JOSE CARBAJAL, ET AL. VS YING H. CHEN, ET AL.

Five Knolls contends it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because California law is clear that a property owner who hires an independent contractor cannot be held vicariously liable for injuries sustained by an employee of the independent contractor.

  • Hearing

    Aug 13, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

ASSOCIATION OF INDEPENDENT JUDICIAL INTERPRETERS OF CALIFORNIA VS SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA ORANGE COUNTY

Code section 71802 gives the trial court discretion to appoint an independent contractor to perform translation services during civil matters. He advised that OCSC does not have any policies, formal or informal, that prevent privately retained certified or registered interpreters to interpret in court matters.

  • Hearing

    Aug 11, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

CESAR CRUZ VS CEDAR CONSTRUCTION & DEVELOPMENT, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

The date of “discovery” is undisputed- Defendant concedes it knew Plaintiff was undocumented from the start, in fact, preventing Plaintiff’s being hired as a lawful employee. Yet despite such knowledge, Defendant hired him anyway for 7 years, purportedly as an independent contractor.

  • Hearing

    Aug 10, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

PATRICK GALLAWAY ET AL VS BLACK ENTERTAINMENT TELEVISION LLC

In particular, Defendants contend that nothing about the house used to film the scene where the incident took place was dangerous or caused the incident, and Mar Vista as the hirer of an independent contractor, Silverscreen, does not have vicarious liability when an employee of the independent contractor is injured. Lastly, Defendants assert the battery cause of action against Truitt must fail because there is no evidence that Truitt intended to harm Gallaway at any time.

  • Hearing

    Aug 10, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

MICAH RIVOIRE VS TIMUR ISHKOV ET AL

There is a Triable Issue of Fact as to whether Barragan was Citywide’s Independent Contractor. There is No Evidence that Barragan was RMS’s Employee. Citywide and RMS assert that they are entitled to summary judgment in this matter because Barragan was an independent contractor at the time of the incident, not their employee. The landmark test for determining whether an individual is an employee or an independent contractor was articulated in S. G. Borello & Sons, Inc. v.

  • Hearing

    Aug 07, 2020

DAVIS WHITE VS. ALEX PADILLA, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF STATE OF CALIFORNIA

It is not inaccurate to say that under this initiative, if an app- based driver meets the definition of an independent contractor, the company does not have to All parties appear to agree that whether any pairticular driver is an independent contractor or an employee wdll ultimately have to be decided by the courts, regardless of whether or not Proposition 22 passes, and if a particular driver is found to be an employee, he or she would be entitled to all benefits applicable to employees.

  • Hearing

    Aug 06, 2020

DAVIS WHITE VS. ALEX PADILLA, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Whether a particular worker is classified as an “employee” or an “independent contractor” can have important consequences in numerous different areas of the law.

  • Hearing

    Aug 06, 2020

CITRUS OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLGY VS CITRUS VALLEY HEALTH

Escamillo, moreover, testified that in a separate discussion with Hererra, Escamillo showed his independent contractor agreement with Plaintiff to Hererra, and specifically directed her to the clause in the contract that required him to give 120 days’ notice, with or without cause. (Id., ¶6, Exh. E, 174:1-20; 175:24-176:16; 177:13-19; 179:12-19 and 180:6-11.)

  • Hearing

    Aug 06, 2020

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

CITRUS OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLGY VS CITRUS VALLEY HEALTH

Escamillo, moreover, testified that in a separate discussion with Hererra, Escamillo showed his independent contractor agreement with Plaintiff to Hererra, and specifically directed her to the clause in the contract that required him to give 120 days’ notice, with or without cause. (Id., ¶6, Exh. E, 174:1-20; 175:24-176:16; 177:13-19; 179:12-19 and 180:6-11.)

  • Hearing

    Aug 06, 2020

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

BRANDON HARTLEY VS STRATEGIC PARTNERS INC.

Employee-Employer Relationship On January 1, 2020, the California Legislature enacted Labor Code section 2750.3, codifying the California Supreme Court’s ruling in Dynamex Operations W. v. Superior Court (2018) 4 Cal.5th 903 (Dynamex). Pursuant to Labor Code section 2750.3 and the Dynamex court, a person providing labor or services for monetary compensation shall be considered an employee, unless the employer demonstrates that he should be an independent contractor because of his services.

  • Hearing

    Aug 05, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

GEORGE T KELLY ET AL VS CHILDRENS HOSPITAL LOS ANGELES

As Plaintiffs pointed out, the investigator, as a matter of law, is an independent contractor rather than an agent of the sponsor. (Abney, supra, at p. 549.) Plaintiffs also argue that Bellicum had a fiduciary relationship with Plaintiffs because Bellicum conspired with the Doctor Defendants to breach their fiduciary duty owed to Plaintiffs.

  • Hearing

    Aug 05, 2020

ONESIMO BENITEZ HERNANDEZ ET AL VS THE KROGER CO ET AL

The doctrine of peculiar risk was created as an exception to the common law rule that “a person who hired an independent contractor generally was not liable to third parties for injuries caused by the contractor’s negligence in performing the work.” (Id. at p. 693.)

  • Hearing

    Aug 05, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

EFD USA INC ET AL VS BAND PRO FILM AND DIGITAL INC ET AL

And, according to Band, Band Pro would refer clients to Brooks and could not recall ever telling customers that Brooks was an independent contractor. (Band Depo. pp. 742-44.) Based on this evidence, a reasonable juror could conclude that Brooks served as Band Defendants’ agent.

  • Hearing

    Aug 05, 2020

MARLENE GOZZI VS ACADIA MALIBU, INC.

If the ICA was signed after the Arbitration Agreement, then the ICA could not have replaced or modified the Arbitration Agreement because the Arbitration agreement, by its terms, “can be modified only by a written document signed by the CEO of Acadia Malibu and the Independent Contractor.” (Vroman Decl. Ex. 1.) The ICA was signed only by Plaintiff.

  • Hearing

    Aug 03, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

BOYARSKY VS. THE ART OF GIFTING, INC.

Defendant contends that Plaintiff was an independent contractor, rather than an employee as alleged in the operative complaint. Pursuant to Defendant’s responses to form interrogatories, he relies on various documents including checks and accompanying account statements issued bi-weekly to Plaintiff in accordance with the terms of the license agreement, as well as checks and weekly reconciliation statements provided to Plaintiff.

  • Hearing

    Aug 01, 2020

ROYAL HOME HEALTHCARE AGENCY VS NOHO HOME HEALTH CARE ET AL.

In any case, defendant makes the same argument in connection with the trade secret causes of action; that plaintiff cannot establish that there was any solicitation of patients or independent contractor nurses here because merely informing customers of one’s former employer of a change in employment, without more, is not solicitation. Aetna Building Maintenance Co. v. Sacks (1952) 39 Cal.2d 198, 204.

  • Hearing

    Jul 31, 2020

EFD USA INC ET AL VS BAND PRO FILM AND DIGITAL INC ET AL

And, according to Band, Band Pro would refer clients to Brooks and could not recall ever telling customers that Brooks was an independent contractor. (Band Depo. pp. 742-44.) Based on this evidence, a reasonable juror could conclude that Brooks served as Band Defendants’ agent.

  • Hearing

    Jul 31, 2020

SCHNEIDER VS. KAY

Borello held that there were a number of factors to consider when deciding if a person was an employee or independent contractor.

  • Hearing

    Jul 30, 2020

CITIZENS OF HUMANITY, LLC VS NICK LACY

Additionally, the issues involve common question of law and facts to determine whether Lacy is Plaintiff’s employee or independent contractor. Plaintiff alleges that it worked with Lacy throughout the second half 2013. Plaintiff alleges that it entered into a contract with Next for Lacy’s services as an independent modeling contractor. Lacy, however, contends that Lacy is an employee of Plaintiff, and now seeks $126,999.90 in waiting time penalties.

  • Hearing

    Jul 30, 2020

  • Judge

    Lori Ann Fournier or Olivia Rosales

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

KROZOS VS FRESENIUS HEALTH PARTNERS INC

Dynamex is a decision regarding deciding whether a person is an independent contractor or an employee. "[T]he ABC test in Dynamex does not fit analytically with and was not intended to apply to claims of joint employer liability." (Henderson v. Equilon Enterprises, LLC (2019) 40 Cal.App.5th 1111, 1125.) "Plaintiffs' general statement that [the defendant] exercised control over their day-to-day employment is a conclusion" that need not be accepted. (Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (2009) 572 F.3d 677, 683.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 30, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

OMAR SANTIAGO CASTRO VS 3608 MANHATTAN AVENUE LLC ET AL

In that case, the California Supreme Court noted: “At common law, a person who hired an independent contractor generally was not liable to third parties for injuries caused by the contractor’s negligence in performing the work.” (Privette v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 689, 693.) The Court identified the peculiar risk doctrine as an exception to that general rule.

  • Hearing

    Jul 30, 2020

KROZOS VS FRESENIUS HEALTH PARTNERS INC

Dynamex is a decision regarding deciding whether a person is an independent contractor or an employee. "[T]he ABC test in Dynamex does not fit analytically with and was not intended to apply to claims of joint employer liability." (Henderson v. Equilon Enterprises, LLC (2019) 40 Cal.App.5th 1111, 1125.) "Plaintiffs' general statement that [the defendant] exercised control over their day-to-day employment is a conclusion" that need not be accepted. (Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (2009) 572 F.3d 677, 683.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 30, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

MANUEL LOMELI, AN INDIVIDUAL VS HONG TEH YANG, AN INDIVIDUAL AND TRUSTEE, ET AL.

Ultimately, Plaintiff’s theory in the case depends on proving that Plaintiff was Defendants’ employee. As discussed above, Plaintiff relies on the conclusive presumption in Labor Code section 2750.5 that a worker who performs services for which a license is required is an employee rather than an independent contractor.

  • Hearing

    Jul 29, 2020

MARSHA LYONS VS OFFICE DEPOT, INC., ET AL.

Any DOCUMENT(S) that are sufficient to show the dates that LYONS was a Lyft driver or otherwise provided transportation or delivery services through YOUR application platform, whether as an employee, independent contractor, or other classification during the RELEVANT PERIOD.

  • Hearing

    Jul 29, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

LORENA ALVARADO VS RODEO REALTY, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

Plaintiff requests the court take judicial notice of two documents: (a) the Independent Contractor Agreement between Plaintiff and defendant Rodeo Realty and (b) the Independent Contractor Agreement between Livyatan and Rodeo Realty. Plaintiff does not provide any legal basis for this request.

  • Hearing

    Jul 29, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 40     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.