Your recipients will receive an email with this envelope shortly and will be able to access it on trellis. You can always see your envelopes by clicking the Inbox on the top right hand corner.
Your subscription has successfully been upgraded.
In Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (2018) 4 Cal. 5th 903 the court considered “what standard applies, under California law, in determining whether workers should be classified as employees or as independent contractors for purposes of California wage orders, which impose obligations relating to the minimum wages, maximum hours, and a limited number of very basic working conditions (such as minimally required meal and rest breaks) of California employees.” (Id. at 913-914.)
What is the applicable standard for determining whether a worker is properly considered an employee or an independent contractor?
The court concluded that “the wage order's suffer or permit to work definition must be interpreted broadly to treat as "employees," and thereby provide the wage order's protection to, all workers who would ordinarily be viewed as working in the hiring business.” (Id. at 916.)
The court further concluded that “in determining whether, under the suffer or permit to work definition, a worker is properly considered the type of independent contractor to whom the wage order does not apply, it is appropriate to look to a standard, commonly referred to as the "ABC" test, that is utilized in other jurisdictions in a variety of contexts to distinguish employees from independent contractors. Under this test, a worker is properly considered an independent contractor to whom a wage order does not apply only if the hiring entity establishes:
(Id. at 916-917.)
“Dynamex applied the ‘suffer or permit to work’ standard contained in the wage order without deciding what standard applied to non-wage-order claims, such as claims for reimbursement of fuel or tolls under Labor Code, § 2802.” (Garcia v. Border Transportation Group, LLC (2018) 28 Cal. App. 5th 558, 571.) In Garcia, the California Court of Appeals determined that there is “no reason to apply the ABC test categorically to every working relationship, particularly when Borello appears to remain the standard for worker’s compensation.” (Id.) “In the absence of an argument that the statutory purposes underlying those claims compel application of a different standard,” the Garcia court concluded that “Borello furnishes the proper standard as to [appellant’s] non-wage-order claims.” (Id.)
Under the Dynamex test, a worker is presumed to be an employee unless the hiring entity establishes each of the three prongs. (Garcia, supra, 28 Cal.App.5th at 569; see also Dynamex, supra, 4 Cal.5th at 964.) However, weighing in Defendants’ favor, the “existence of an employment relationship is a question for the trier of fact, [that] can be decided by the court as a matter of law if the evidence supports only one reasonable conclusion.” (Beaumont-Jacques v. Farmers Group, Inc. (2013) 217 Cal. App. 4th 1138, 1143.)
The first prong requires the hiring entity to establish that “the worker is free from the control and direction of the hirer in connection with the performance of the work, both under the contract for the performance of such work and in fact.” (Dynamex, supra, 4 Cal.5th at 916.) This prong involves Borello’s common law “control” test, recognizing that “a business need not control the precise manner or details of the work in order to have maintained the necessary control” for an employer-employee relationship. (Garcia, supra, 28 Cal.App.5th at 569.) The focus is therefore whether the worker is subject to the “type and degree of control a business typically exercises over employees.” (Dynamex, supra, 4 Cal. 5th at 958.)
The second prong requires the hiring entity to establish that the worker performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity’s business. (Dynamex, supra, 4 Cal. 5th at 916-17.) “This inquiry turns on whether the worker is ‘reasonably viewed as providing services to the business in a role comparable to that of an employee, rather than in a role comparable to that of a traditional independent contractor.’ [Citation.] A plumber hired by a retail store would not be considered an employee; by contrast, a cake decorator servicing a bakery for custom cakes, or an at-home seamstress sewing dresses from patterns supplied by a clothing manufacturer, would.” (Garcia, supra, 28 Cal. App. 5th at 569-70.)
The third prong requires the hiring entity to establish that the worker is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business of the same nature as the work performed for the hiring entity. (Dynamex, supra, 4 Cal. 5th at 916-17.) The inquiry is whether the worker fits the common conception of an independent contractor — “an individual who independently has made the decision to go into business for himself or herself” and “generally takes the usual steps to establish and promote his or her independent business — for example, through incorporation, licensure, advertisements, routine offerings to provide the services of the independent business to the public or to a number of potential customers, and the like.” (Garcia, supra, 28 Cal. App. 5th at 573.) This prong “requires that the worker is engaged in an independent business, not that he or she could have become so engaged.” (Id. at 570.)
The holding of S. G. Borello & Sons, Inc. v Dept. of Industrial Relations (1989) 48 Cal. 3d 341, provided the basis of what is known as the "Control Test" holding in pertinant part, “as a matter of law on the undisputed facts that the "sharefarmers" are "employees" entitled to compensation coverage.”
Under Borello, “[t]he determination of employee or independent-contractor status is one of fact if dependent upon the resolution of disputed evidence or inferences.... (Germann v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 776, 783.) If the evidence is undisputed, the question becomes one of law (Tieberg v. Unemployment Ins. App. Bd. (1970) 2 Cal.3d 943, 951.) “The label placed by the parties on their relationship is not dispositive, and subterfuges are not countenanced.” (Kowalski v. Shell Oil Co. (1979) 23 Cal. 3d 168, 176; Tieberg, supra, 2 Cal.3d at p. 952; Truesdale v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1987) 190 Cal. App. 3d 608, 614 [235 Cal. Rptr. 754]; Martin v. Phillips Petroleum Co. (1974) 42 Cal. App. 3d 916, 922-923.)
The "control" test requires courts to engage in a fact-specific analysis to determine whether a staffing agency exercised sufficient control over an interview to establish an employment relationship. (See Gunawan v. Howroyd–Wright Employment Agency (2014) 997 F.Supp.2d 1058.)
Under the common law test (also articulated in Borello) the principal test of an employment relationship is whether the person to whom service is rendered has the right to control the manner and means of accomplishing the result desired. (Ayala v. Antelope Valley Newspapers, Inc. (2014) 59 Cal.4th 522, 531.) What matters is whether the hirer “retains all necessary control” over its operations. (Id.) Courts may also consider
(Id. at 532.)
Under Borello, the court highlighted how, “the common law tests were developed to define an employer's liability for injuries caused by his employee, [because] ‘the basic inquiry in compensation law involves which injuries to the employee should be insured against by the employer.’” (Borello, supra, 48 Cal. 3d. at 352.)
The Borello Court articulated the historical and legal significance of the the distinction between employee and independent contractor, stating in relevant part, “[t]he meaning and content of the statutory control test has been clear since at least 1947 when this court explained: ‘An independent contractor is one who renders service for a specified recompense for a specified result, under the control of his principal as to the result of his work only and not as to the means by which such result is accomplished.’” (Id. citing Lab. Code, § 3353.)
“The distinction between the status of an independent contractor and that of an employee rests upon several important considerations.” (Id.) “A material and often conclusive factor is the right of an employer to exercise complete and authoritative control of the mode and manner in which the work is performed.” (Id.) “The existence of such right of control, and not the extent of its exercise, gives rise to the employer-employee relationship.” (Borello, supra, 48 Cal. 3d at 367 citing S. A. Gerrard Co. v. Industrial Acc. Com., (1941) 17 Cal. 2d 411, 413-414; Riskin v. Industrial Acc. Com.(1943) 23 Cal. 2d 248, 253; Industrial Indemnity Exchange v. Industrial Acc. Com. (1945) 26 Cal. 2d 130, 135.)
Labor Code, section 2750.5 creates a rebuttable presumption that a worker performing services for which a license is required is an employee rather than an independent contractor.
CONTRERAS-PERALES VS BRUNO
37-2016-00043310-CU-PO-CTL
Nov 07, 2017
San Diego County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
The first issue asserted is whether Tunchez is an employee or independent contractor, and even if he is an independent contractor, is that an issue of fact for the judge or jury at trial? The second issue asserted is, if Tunchez is an independent contractor, did Sakaida have some "nondelegable" duty as a matter of law that could not be transferred to Tunchez ?
THOMAS IBARRA VS WILLIAM J ESCOBAR
CIV247415
Mar 06, 2009
Ventura County, CA
The Court essentially held that an employee of an independent contractor (for whom workers’ compensation insurance must be provided) should not be treated differently from an independent contractor himself (even though he would not personally be covered by such insurance).
COREY STRAND VS EDWARD L GROSS ET AL
BC585491
Jan 12, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
Therefore, per Labor Code §2750.5, Randall Hayes is deemed to have been Moving Defendant’s employee, as opposed to independent contractor, at the time of the accident. The more difficult issue is whether Plaintiff was Randall Hayes’s employee, as opposed to independent contractor, at the time of the accident. The parties appear to agree that, as a matter of law, if Plaintiff was Randall Hayes’s employee, and Randall Hayes was Defendant’s employee, then Plaintiff would be de facto Defendant’s employee.
HADI HILLO VS RANDALL HAYES ASSOCIATES INC ET AL
BC552021
Oct 24, 2016
Los Angeles County, CA
Varisco additionally observed that an “an independent contractor agreement can properly include an at-will clause giving the parties the right to terminate the agreement. Such a clause does not, in and of itself, change the independent contractor relationship into an employee-employer relationship. If it did, independent contractor arrangements could only be established through agreement which limited the right of a party, or perhaps both parties, to terminate the agreement.
YAMAGUCHI V. AMPERSAND PUBLISHING, LLC
1483950
Jan 26, 2016
Santa Barbara County, CA
Dabbs’s theory is solely based on her contention that Plaintiff was an employee of Johnson, who was hired by Dabbs as an independent contractor. (Dem. At 3:5-12.) However, this is not alleged in the complaint, and Dabbs provides no judicially noticeable documents that would support its contention that Johnson was an independent contractor.
HUGO RIVAS VS DANIELLE DABBS ET AL
BC709868
Sep 07, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
Dept. of Transportation (2002) 27 Cal.4th 198, 212 [no evidence CalTrans' exercise of retained control over safety conditions at the worksite affirmatively contributed to employee of independent contractor's practice of retracting crane's outriggers to allow traffic to pass, causing crane to tip over].) Similarly, a hirer of an independent contractor is liable to an employee of an independent contractor insofar as the hirer's provision of unsafe equipment affirmatively contributes to the employee's injury.
LEMUS VS UP N DOWN SCAFFOLDING INC
37-2018-00035721-CU-PO-CTL
Sep 09, 2021
San Diego County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Dept. of Transportation (2002) 27 Cal.4th 198, 212 [no evidence CalTrans' exercise of retained control over safety conditions at the worksite affirmatively contributed to employee of independent contractor's practice of retracting crane's outriggers to allow traffic to pass, causing crane to tip over].) Similarly, a hirer of an independent contractor is liable to an employee of an independent contractor insofar as the hirer's provision of unsafe equipment affirmatively contributes to the employee's injury.
JUANITA DEVELASCO VS. ATLAS CONSTRUCTION SUPPLY
37-2017-00029572-CU-PO-CTL
Jan 17, 2019
San Diego County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Hetsko was not an employee of DHC/ Dr. Dowairdari but was an independent contractor. Specifically, Defendant submits evidence to indicate: Dr. Hetsko worked for Dr. Dowairdari pursuant to an independent contractor agreement; Dr. Hetsko exercised full control over the relationship between himself and Plaintiff; Dr. Hetsko did not consult with Dr. Dowairdari with regard to Plaintiff’s treatment; and Dr. Hetsko maintained his own malpractice insurance. Separate Statement, ¶¶ 3, 9-11.
WARD VS. DENTAL HEALTH-CORONA INC
RIC1500523
Oct 21, 2016
Riverside County, CA
Similarly, a hirer of an independent contractor hirer is liable to an employee of an independent contractor insofar as the hirer's provision of unsafe equipment affirmatively contributes to the employee's injury. (McKown v. Walmart Stores (2002) 27 Cal.4th 219, 222 [Wal-Mart liable for requesting independent contractor use a fork-lift without a chain securing the platform to the extension or the forklift; the contractor's employee fell 15' when the platform disengaged from an extension to the fork-lift].)
BRIAN SALATINO VS WESTFIELD LLC
37-2016-00036904-CU-PO-CTL
Jul 26, 2018
San Diego County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
“Willful misclassification” is defined to mean “avoiding employee status for an individual by voluntarily and knowingly misclassifying that individual as an independent contractor.” (Lab. Code § 226.8, subd. (i)(4).) The statute therefore makes it unlawful for an employer to “engage in” the act of “voluntarily and knowingly misclassifying [an] individual as an independent contractor.” (Id., § 226.8, subds. (a), (i)(4).)
HAIG SEREBRAKIAN VS SHEMSHAD FOOD PROD INC., ET AL.
19STCV28997
Jan 06, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Other Employment
Discussion Independent Contractor versus Employee Plaintiff argues that the Court must determine, as a ‘gateway dispute,’ whether Plaintiff is an independent contractor or an employee. Plaintiff argues this issue is relevant because different arguments regarding unconscionability, discussed below, come in to play depending on whether Plaintiff is an independent contractor or an employee. Defendants argue the arbitrator is empowered to resolve this preliminary issue.
JACKSON, PHILLIP VS TAMARA, TIFFIANY
16K12702
Mar 14, 2017
Elaine Lu or Yolanda Orozco
Los Angeles County, CA
The sole issue on the instant motion for summary judgment is whether Esquivel was, at the time of the accident, an employee or an independent contractor of Defendant Marine Truck Service. If Esquivel was an employee, then Marine Truck Service may, potentially, be subject to liability. If Esquivel was an independent contractor, then no liability would accrue to Marine Truck Service. See Fonseca v. County of Orange (1972) 28 Cal.App.3d 361. Marine Truck Service relies primarily on Millsap v.
AUDREY WAIGHT-WILLIAM VS EDUARDO ESQUIVEL ET AL
BC600008
Aug 21, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Auto
Dept. of Transportation (2002) 27 Cal.4th 198, 212 [no evidence CalTrans' exercise of retained control over safety conditions at the worksite affirmatively contributed to employee of independent contractor's practice of retracting crane's outriggers to allow traffic to pass, causing crane to tip over].) Similarly, a hirer of an independent contractor is liable to an employee of an independent contractor insofar as the hirer's provision of unsafe equipment affirmatively contributes to the employee's injury.
JUANITA DEVELASCO VS. ATLAS CONSTRUCTION SUPPLY
37-2017-00029572-CU-PO-CTL
Feb 28, 2019
San Diego County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
The question of whether a plaintiff was an employee or an independent contractor are two sides of the same coin. Independent contractor status is not an affirmative defense, nor is it new matter. Instead, the complete relevant factual nature of the parties' relationship determines whether the plaintiffs' status was that of employee or independent contractor. The plaintiffs' prima facie showing does not need to "disprove" independent contractor status.
LORIANNE SAWIN VS. MCCLATCHY COMPANY
34-2009-00033950-CL-OE-GDS
Dec 26, 2013
Sacramento County, CA
Employment
Other Employment
Because the only evidence before the Court indicates that Judgment Debtor is an independent contractor rather than an employee, Judgment Debtor's payments cannot be garnished via an earnings withholding order. The claim of exemption – as it relates to the wage garnishment only – is granted in its entirety. No other issue is currently before the Court. Any funds held by the levying officer shall be released to Judgment Debtor.
PACIFIC CREDIT EXCHANGE VS BLASE
IN033652
Mar 27, 2019
San Diego County, CA
Collections
Collections
In denying Defendant’s motion to dismiss or stay based on forum non conveniens, the Court did not decide whether Plaintiff was an employee or independent contractor or whether there was a violation of Labor Code § 925(a).
SCHAFFER VS. MARIANNA INDUSTRIES, INC.
30-2018-00999975-CU-WT-CXC
May 10, 2019
Orange County, CA
Privette has to do with whether the hirer of an independent contractor may be liable for an injury to an employee of the independent contractor, based on such concepts as negligent hiring of the independent contractor or negligent supervision or oversight of the independent contractor’s work.
ROBERTO RANGEL VS. MARTINEZ REFINING COMPANY, LLC
C23-00617
Feb 15, 2024
Contra Costa County, CA
Crt. (1993) 5 Cal.4th 689 and its progeny do not bar liability against a hirer of an independent contractor where the hirer is directly negligent. The controlling case is McKown v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (2002) 27 Cal.4th 219. There, the court held that the hirer of an independent contractor could be liable where it provided an unsafe forklift with an extension to the independent contractor's employee and the employee was injured.
GUILLERMO ORTIZ VS. CARL C TROST ET AL
CGC15547738
Jan 31, 2017
San Francisco County, CA
Massimei was an independent contractor. In general terms, under the common law, a worker is an "employee" if the employer has control over the details of the employee's work.
FATEMI VS. A FAMILY DENTIST IN SAN MARCOS & CARLSBAD
37-2018-00024851-CU-MM-NC
Aug 15, 2019
San Diego County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Medical Malpractice
In general, if a landowner hires an independent contractor to do inherently dangerous work on his or her property, and if that independent contractor negligently causes harm to a third party, the injured third party may sue both the negligent independent contractor and, on a theory of vicarious liability, the non-negligent landowner that hired the independent contractor. However, under the Privette doctrine, as announced by our Supreme Court in Privette v.
SIMON SEO VS PACIFIC LAND BUILDERS INC
BC632528
Jan 04, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Because the only evidence before the Court indicates that Judgment Debtor is an independent contractor rather than an employee, Judgment Debtor's payments cannot be garnished via an earnings withholding order. The claim of exemption – as it relates to the wage garnishment only – is granted in its entirety. No other issue is currently before the Court. Any funds held by the levying officer shall be released to Judgment Debtor.
MCT GROUP VS CAPPS
37-2014-00043811-CL-CL-NC
Mar 27, 2019
San Diego County, CA
Collections
Collections
Privette was based on the fact that the contractor who hired the injured employee was an independent contractor, and the employee was employed by the independent contractor.
MSC20-01632
Oct 31, 2022
Contra Costa County, CA
Yet, under [an] expansive view of the peculiar risk doctrine . . ., the person who hired the independent contractor can, for the same injury-causing conduct of the contractor, be held liable in a tort action for the injuries to the contractor's employee. . . . "The 'principal' who hires an independent contractor should be subject to no greater liability 'than its [independent contractor] agent,' whose exposure for injury to an employee is limited to providing workers' compensation insurance. . . .
LEONCIO GARCIA VS. TONY CORTEZ
56-2009-00343797-CU-PO-VTA
Jul 21, 2010
Ventura County, CA
The independent contractor defense[2] is inapplicable to this cause of action because employee status is not an element of a cause of action for IIED. C.
YUJI HASEGAWA VS LOCAL JAPAN INC,, ET AL.
18STCV01106
Feb 03, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Other Employment
On these facts, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of defendant, concluding the driver was an independent contractor, not an employee. The Millsap court affirmed, concluding the uncontradicted evidence showed the driver was an independent contractor.
YAMAGUCHI V. AMPERSAND PUBLISHING, LLC
1483950
Jan 12, 2016
Santa Barbara County, CA
contractor, not an employee.
ROLDAN VS DAL PEZZO
37-2021-00031336-CU-PO-CTL
Jul 28, 2023
San Diego County, CA
Defendants hired non-party Marksmen Building and Design (Marksmen) as an independent contractor to perform remodeling of Defendants home. (UMF 4.) Marksmen hired Plaintiff to perform carpentry work at the subject location, including the installation of crown moldings. (UMF 6-7.) The Privette doctrine is applicable here, as Plaintiff was injured while working as an independent contractor or as an employee of an independent contractor.
ISMAEL SOLIS VS JOSEPH F. COYNE, JR., ET AL.
21STCV08166
Nov 09, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
The parties purportedly contracted in June 2020, and when doing so, Marzan allegedly represented that she would be an independent contractor, although she had plans to later file suit and claim she was actually an employee of the Cross-Complainants. (CC ¶ 15.) It would appear, then, that whether Marzan was an employee or independent contractor is irrelevant.
PRISCILLA R. MARZAN VS RICHARD JANOV, ET AL.
22STCV06241
Jun 07, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
Generally speaking, when an employee of an independent contractor is injured, the injured party cannot sue the party that hired the independent contractor. (SeaBright Ins. Co. v. US Airways, Inc. (2011) 52 Cal.4th 590, citing Privette.)
HUGO GUZMAN VS. MCDONALD'S RESTAURANTS OF CALIFORNIA, INC.
20CECG02082
Oct 06, 2021
Fresno County, CA
For the first time during this litigation, in connection with the instant motion for attorneys’ fees, Hobbs claims that she is an independent contractor and not an associate or employee of Salek Law Firm. Other than the conflicting declaration of Hobbs, Salek Law Firm has not submitted any evidence to indicate that Hobbs was an independent contractor.
SALEK LAW FIRM VS. IRON WORK INDUSTRIES, INC.
30-2017-00897687-CL-BC-CJC
Nov 14, 2018
Orange County, CA
'If control may be exercised only as to the result of the work and not the means by which it is accomplished, an independent contractor relationship is established.' [Citations.]” Millsap v. Federal Express Corp. (1991) 227 Cal.App.3d 425, 431. Another significant factor considered is whether the purported employer has the ability to terminate the purported independent contractor.
AARON YOUNG VS NEA DELIVERY LLC ET AL
BC621762
Apr 27, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Auto
Guzman, Defendant is not liable for injuries to an employee of a subcontractor. Privette v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal. 4th 689 “held that an employee of a contractor may not sue the hirer of the contractor under either of the alternative versions of the peculiar risk doctrine set forth in sections 413 and 416.” Hooker v. Department of Transportation (2002) 27 Cal. 4th 198, 200-201, The hirer of an independent contractor is not liable for injuries to the employees of the independent contractor.
OSCAR SANCHEZ-AYON VS ROBERT ERICKSON
BC591649
Feb 02, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
First Cause of Action - Negligence Plaintiff was not an Independent Contractor “The distinction between an employee and an independent contractor is a significant one: With some exceptions, an employer is vicariously liable for the negligent acts of its employees, but not of its independent contractors.” (Bowman v. Wyatt (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 286, 299.)
HOLE V. HU
SCV-260843
Nov 16, 2018
René Auguste Chouteau
Sonoma County, CA
Employee vs. Independent Contractor; Distinction Not Material A worker's tortious conduct cannot be imputed to the employer on a respondeat superior theory if the worker was the employer's independent contractor rather than an "employee." Zerne, Flahavan, Cheng and Wright, Cal. Prac. Guide: Personal Injury (The Rutter Group 2016) at ¶ 2:830. However, there are many exceptions to this general rule of nonliability for contractors' torts. Id.
MUSIJ VS NVISION GLASS
37-2015-00029331-CU-PO-CTL
Nov 17, 2016
San Diego County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Department of Transportation (2002) 27 Cal.4th 198, 202 ["We conclude that a hirer of an independent contractor is not liable to an employee of the contractor merely because the hirer retained control over safety conditions at a worksite, but that a hirer is liable to an employee of a contractor insofar as a hirer's exercise of retained control affirmatively contributed to the employee's injuries."].)
ARMANDO PENA ET AL VS. HENSEL PHELPS / GENSLER / KUTH RANIERI JOINT ET AL
CGC19572726
Jun 11, 2021
San Francisco County, CA
The California Supreme Court has held that the duty to ensure a safe workplace may be delegated, based largely on the policy rationale that because workers’ compensation limits the liability of an independent contractor to its employees, “it would be unfair to permit the injured employee to obtain full tort damages from the hirer of the independent contractor—damages that would be unavailable to employees who did not happen to work for a hired contractor.
MARCOS VALENZUELA ET AL VS NORTHWOOD INVESTORS LLC ET AL
BC648728
Nov 02, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
Whether Plaintiff was an employee or independent contractor is a factual status that should be known to Plaintiff , and the evidence demonstrate s that Plaintiff has taken the position that he is an independent contractor. Plaintiff provides no explanation as to the sudden material shift, which is against the weight of his prior discovery responses.
FELIX INTERIANO VS G.T.O. AUTO GLASS CORPORATION, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.
22STCV29647
Feb 29, 2024
Los Angeles County, CA
Department of Industrial Relations (1989) 48 Cal.3d 341, 349 ( Borello ) to determine whether a worker is an employee or independent contractor. Under this test, “[t]he most significant factor in determining whether the status of a person performing services for another is an employee or an independent contractor is the right to control the manner and means of accomplishing the result, that is, the details of the work.” ( Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A., Inc. v.
EMINA MILA YOUNG VS PEGASUS ELITE AVIATION, INC.
20STCV32434
May 11, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Department of Industrial Relations (1989) 48 Cal.3d 341, 349 ( Borello ) to determine whether a worker is an employee or independent contractor. Under this test, “[t]he most significant factor in determining whether the status of a person performing services for another is an employee or an independent contractor is the right to control the manner and means of accomplishing the result, that is, the details of the work.” ( Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A., Inc. v.
EMINA MILA YOUNG VS PEGASUS ELITE AVIATION, INC.
20STCV32434
Apr 05, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Department of Industrial Relations (1989) 48 Cal.3d 341, 349 ( Borello ) to determine whether a worker is an employee or independent contractor. Under this test, “[t]he most significant factor in determining whether the status of a person performing services for another is an employee or an independent contractor is the right to control the manner and means of accomplishing the result, that is, the details of the work.” ( Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A., Inc. v.
EMINA MILA YOUNG VS PEGASUS ELITE AVIATION, INC.
20STCV32434
May 04, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Department of Industrial Relations (1989) 48 Cal.3d 341, 349 ( Borello ) to determine whether a worker is an employee or independent contractor. Under this test, “[t]he most significant factor in determining whether the status of a person performing services for another is an employee or an independent contractor is the right to control the manner and means of accomplishing the result, that is, the details of the work.” ( Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A., Inc. v.
EMINA MILA YOUNG VS PEGASUS ELITE AVIATION, INC.
20STCV32434
May 04, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
On Negligence, a government entity may be held liable under the “retained control doctrine’ for a tortious act or omission of its independent contractor pursuant to Government Code Section 815.4, however, Plaintiff must allege the prerequisites of section 815.4, including the factual allegation that the employee’s injury must have been proximately caused by a tortious act or omission of the independent contractor
BLAKELY VS CITY OF CORONA
CVRI2100943
Aug 10, 2021
Riverside County, CA
Further, [u]nder the plain meaning of section 2750.5, any unlicensed subcontractor is the employee of the general contractor; consequently, as a matter of law, the employee of an unlicensed subcontractor is the employee of the principal contractor. ( Ibid. ) The rule of workers compensation exclusivity, which shields an independent contractor who pays workers compensation insurance premiums from further liability to its employee, should equally apply to the person hiring the contractor because the hirer has
RONALD ORTIZ VS RANDALL POMEROY, ET AL.
20STCV06823
Dec 18, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiff’s Status as Employee or Independent Contractor Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s Labor Code claims fail because Plaintiff was an independent contractor and not an employee. Defendant’s arguments, however, rely on a declaration by Khadavi and not the actual allegations in Plaintiff’s complaint. (See Demurrer at 6:7-20 in which Defendant does not cite to one allegation in the complaint, but to Khadavi’s declaration).
AZITA SIMONI VS DERMATOLOGY & LASER MEDICAL CENTER, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.
20STCV31916
Jan 20, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Other Employment
Defendant brings the instant motion for summary judgment or in the alternative summary adjudication, claiming it owed no duty of care to Plaintiff, the employee of an independent contractor. Defendant argues it delegated all tort duties it may have owed Plaintiff when it hired CES as an independent contractor. Defendant argues it had no role in training Plaintiff; did not supervise or control Plaintiff’s work; and did no affirmative act that caused or contributed to Plaintiff’s accident.
JOSE NOEL RODRIGUEZ-GONZALEZ ET AL. VS SUNNYVALLEY SMOKED MEATS, INC., A CORPORATION ET AL.
STK-CV-UPI-2016-0003654
Jul 23, 2019
San Joaquin County, CA
Heritage fails to meet its initial burden to establish that Ortega was an independent contractor because it has failed to establish that Dynamex does not apply or its factors have been met. Since Heritage has failed to establish that Ortega is an independent contractor, Heritage’s argument under Privette also fails.
BROTHERS VS ORTEGA
RIC1904276
Jan 19, 2023
Riverside County, CA
The Court finds that there are triable issues of material fact as to whether Plaintiff was an employee or an independent contractor. Because different inferences may be drawn as to whether Plaintiff is an employee or an independent contractor, this is a question of fact best suited for the jury. (See Brose v. Union-Tribune Publishing Co. (1986) 183 Cal.App.3d 1079, 1081-1082; Jackson v. AEG Live, LLC (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 1156, 1179.)
NICOLE ARGUINZONI-GIL VS PRUDENCE HALL MD INC ET AL
BC702384
Apr 02, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
This inequity would be even greater when, as is true here, the independent contractor had sole control over the means of performing the work. ( Id . at p. 603.) A threshold question governing the applicability of Privette is whether Woods was Defendants employee or an independent contractor. Whether a common law employer-employee relationship exists turns foremost on the degree of a hirers right to control how the end result is achieved. ( Ayala v. Antelope Valley Newspapers, Inc.
ELVA ZALDIVAR, ET AL. VS STEVE LEE, ET AL.
19STCV20803
Dec 05, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Privette “renders the hirer of an independent contractor immune from liability to the independent contractor’s employee even when the basis for liability was that the hirer failed to provide in the contract that the contractor must take special precautions to avert the risks of work. [Citation.] Privette also bars liability when the injured employee’s theory is that the hirer negligently hired the independent contractor. [Citation.]
CAROLYN YOUNG VS TURNER TURNER CONSTRUCTION
19STCV17982
Sep 17, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Moving Defendants argue that they are not liable for the negligence of independent contractors, and that Plaintiff was an employee of an independent contractor and cannot establish that any exceptions to the Privette doctrine exist. In Privette v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 689, the California Supreme Court held that when an employee of an independent contractor is injured in the workplace, he or she may not recover tort damages from the hirer of the independent contractor.
PEREZ, ET AL. V. SHAE APARTMENTS, ET AL.
30-2018-00987765-CU-NP-CJC
Sep 27, 2019
Orange County, CA
Violation of Labor Code §226.8 (9 th COA) [ Issue No. 8 ] Section 226.8 provides, in pertinent part, that it is unlawful to “willful[ly] misclassif[y] an individual as an independent contractor.” (Lab. Code §226.8(a)(1).) In determining whether a worker qualifies as an independent contractor or employee, the existence of an independent contractor agreement is not controlling. ( Bernis v. People (1952)109 Cal.App.2d 253, 267.)
RONNY GRUNWALD VS DRIVE SHOPS, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION
19STCV20373
Jan 07, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
“A worker is an independent contractor when he or she follows the employer’s desires only in the result of the work, and not the means by which it is achieved.” (Id.) Here, Defendants have provided evidence that Hidalgo was an independent contractor providing valet services and not an employee of Defendants. (UMF 57.) As such, Defendants are not directly or vicariously liable for the actions of Hidalgo as an employee.
TAITANO VS ISA & EST INC
RIC2002763
Nov 10, 2022
Riverside County, CA
Peters was Defendant’s employee or an independent contractor as explained in CACI No. 3700. CACI No. 3704 sets forth the factors for determining whether an employer-employee relationship exists.
ALCAZAR V. PETERS
30-2017-00939483-CU-PA-CJC
Jun 04, 2019
Orange County, CA
Though not dispositive, the Agreement provides: “The renter is a self-employed, independent contractor, not an employee of the owner or Landlord...” Thus, Moving Defendants argue that Mai exercised control over the work provided and acted as an independent contractor at the time of the incident. However, it is the right to control, rather than the amount of control which was exercised, that determines whether an employer-employee relationship exists.
HELENE CAMPBELL VS MANCHESTER NAIL & SPA INC
BC612017
Jun 05, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Auto
Superior Court, 5 Cal.4th 689) provides that under the peculiar risk doctrine, a person who hires an independent contractor (here MCC) to perform work that is inherently dangerous cannot be held responsible for tort damages when the independent contractor's negligent performance of the work causes work related injuries to an employee of the independent contractor.
CHRISTOPHER CLANTON VS. XP SYSTEMS CORPORATION
56-2016-00481127-CU-PO-VTA
Feb 05, 2018
Ventura County, CA
Under Privette, Manuel’s sole remedy for his injuries as an employee of Mitsubishi is a worker’s compensation claim. Manuel is not entitled to seek relief from Matt, because Manuel was an employee of an independent contractor, Mitsubishi. The exceptions to this general rule do not apply here.
MANUEL ESPINOZA ET AL VS GILLESPIE CORPORATION ET AL
BC585264
Mar 15, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
Defendant does not address any specific cause of action but argues instead that the FAC is a sham pleading because to omit allegations in the original complaint that plaintiff was both and independent contractor and employee and alleges only that he was an employee. This argument fails. Allegations in the original pleading that rendered it vulnerable to demurrer or other attack cannot simply be omitted without explanation in the amended pleading.
ORTIZ VS. D/T CARSON ENTERPRISES INC
RIC 1803594
Oct 16, 2018
Riverside County, CA
COLLATERAL NEGLIGENCE “The employer of an independent contractor is not liable for the “collateral” or “casual” negligence by an employee of the independent contractor. The Restatement's rule concerning collateral negligence in section 426 reads in relevant part as follows: An employer of an independent contractor . . .
MARCH LEVIN VS CARISSA TIMM ET AL
BC668005
Apr 02, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Even though the agreement between Batista and AMS is labeled “independent contractor”, an "agreement characterizing the relationship as one of ‘client- independent contractor’ will be ignored if the parties, by their actual conduct, act like ‘employer-employee.’” (Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A., Inc. v. Superior Court (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 864, 877). Here, based on the Borello factors, there is sufficient evidence of employer-employee conduct to create a triable issue.
JENNIFER OLSBERG VS JOSEPH BATISTA
BC650617
Sep 03, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Auto
Even though the agreement between Batista and AMS is labeled “independent contractor”, an "agreement characterizing the relationship as one of ‘client- independent contractor’ will be ignored if the parties, by their actual conduct, act like ‘employer-employee.’” (Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A., Inc. v. Superior Court (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 864, 877). Here, based on the Borello factors, there is sufficient evidence of employer-employee conduct to create a triable issue.
JENNIFER OLSBERG VS JOSEPH BATISTA
BC650617
Aug 29, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Auto
In response, Defendant admits that it seeks to discover whether her subsequent employers classified Plaintiff as an independent contractor or employee. However, Defendant contends this is directly relevant, under the “balancing test” articulated in Williams v.
NEEBLE-DIAMOND V. HOTEL CALIFORNIA BY THE SEA, LLC
30-2019-01058756
Jun 26, 2020
Orange County, CA
Plaintiff argues he was hired as a independent contractor of Castillo, had been hired as an independent contractor on approximately 10 prior occasions, and never received a W-2 form from Castillo. (Declaration of Jose Villagran, ¶ 4.) Even assuming Plaintiff was an independent contractor of Castillo, Privette still applies to bar a tort action against Defendant. (Michael v.
JOSE G VILLAGRANA VS SCOTTYS GAS STATION
BC695007
Jul 18, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
FASI and FAI (collectively Defendants) demur to the two causes of action on the grounds they did not own the Truck; Trujillo was an independent contractor; and they did not ratify Trujillo’s conduct or commit oppression, fraud or malice for purposes of punitive damages. Plaintiffs oppose the motion. Defendants argue that the facts alleged in the complaint clearly show that Trujillo was an independent contractor and not Defendants’ employee.
JOHN SWARTHOUT V. FORWARD AIR SOLUTIONS, INC.
15CVP-0194
Apr 18, 2017
San Luis Obispo County, CA
The Court notes Plaintiff’s allegation that misclassification also violates Labor Code §2753, which provides that, “[A] person who, for... consideration, knowingly advises an employer to treat an individual as an independent contractor to avoid employee status for that individual shall be jointly and severally liable with the employer if the individual is found not to be an independent contractor.” (Complaint ¶25.)
ANTHONY STRIKE VS BAAK MEDIA, INC., ET AL.
19STCV28465
Jun 15, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Other Employment
“When … the injuries resulting from an independent contractor’s performance on inherently dangerous work are to an employee of the contractor … the doctrine of peculiar risk affords no basis for the employee to seek recovery of tort damages from the person who hired the contractor but did not cause the injuries. (Privette, supra, 5 Cal.App.4th at p. 702, emphasis added.) Defendant must establish, by admissible evidence, that there was an independent contractor. Defendant has failed to do so.
WYCINSKY VS COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
RIC1902177
Mar 22, 2021
Riverside County, CA
However, now that Walsh is no longer an “employee” of Paradyne, he receives no “wages” from Paradyne to garnish. An independent contractor is not an employee. (See People v. Uber Technologies, Inc. (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 266, 287.) Because Walsh is no longer an employee of Paradyne, and Premier is no longer capable of garnishing Walsh’s wages, Premier seeks an order assigning all of Walsh’s income, that is earned as an independent contractor for Paradyne, to Premier.
PREMIER CAPITAL, LLC V. T.O.F. DEVELOPMENT CORP., ET AL
1468848
May 17, 2023
Santa Barbara County, CA
“Privette held that an independent contractor’s injured employee, although qualifying as a ‘third party’ with respect to the contract between the hirer and the independent contractor, cannot use the doctrine of peculiar risk to recover damages from the hirer of the independent contractor for injuries compensable under workers’ compensation insurance, the cost of which is generally included in the contract price for the hired work.” (Ibid.)
ANTONIO CUTTS VS MORLEY BUILDERS INC ET AL
BC688363
Jan 16, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Independent Contractor versus Employee Both parties spend a significant amount of time briefing what impact, if any, the fact that Plaintiff is an independent contractor of an independent contractor, rather than an employee of an independent contractor, has on the outcome of the suit. This briefing is all made in relation to whether the Privette doctrine applies to independent contractors of independent contractors, or if it is limited to employees of independent contractors.
KENNY YUM VS GEORGE WISZTREICH ET AL
BC597995
Nov 15, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
Department of Industrial Relations (1989) 48 Cal.3d 341, our Supreme Court laid out a number of factors for the Court to consider in determining whether a worker was an independent contractor or an employee.
RUSHTON HALBERT VS PRN MEDICAL AND SURGICAL COVERAGE LLC
BC636444
Jan 25, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
In addition, as to Defendants arguments that Decedent signed the independent contractor agreement, the agreement provides in relevant part: 5. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. Contractor is an independent contractor and not an employee of the Company, and, unless otherwise stated in this Agreement, is not entitled to any of the benefits normally provided to the employees of the Company. Contractor's helper are not employee [sic] of Sithal [sic] Inc..
OBDULIA MEZA, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO HELIODORO MEZA, ET AL. VS RAM BAHETI, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL.
19STCV21857
Dec 23, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Rptr. 3d 495, 123 P.3d 931] (Kinsman), and sets forth the limited circumstances in which the hirer of an independent contractor can be liable to an employee of that contractor for hazardous conditions of its property.
LAZARO MORALES VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES ET AL
BC700324
Sep 27, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Further, [u]nder the plain meaning of section 2750.5, any unlicensed subcontractor is the employee of the general contractor; consequently, as a matter of law, the employee of an unlicensed subcontractor is the employee of the principal contractor. ( Ibid. ) The rule of workers compensation exclusivity, which shields an independent contractor who pays workers compensation insurance premiums from further liability to its employee, should equally apply to the person hiring the contractor because the hirer has
RONALD ORTIZ VS RANDALL POMEROY, ET AL.
20STCV06823
Oct 26, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Labor Code Sec. 226(a) due to his failure to provide an employee with a detachable itemized wage statement containing the required information. The violations concern a single employee, Miguel Carillo Medina ("Medina"). Huynh maintained that he was not required to provide wage statements because Medina was an independent contractor, not an employee. As Huynh notes, in assessing Medina's status (employee vs. independent contractor), and after noting the factors set forth in Borello & Sons v.
HUYNH VS DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS DIVISION OF LABOR STANDARDS ENFORCEMENT
37-2018-00019956-CU-WM-CTL
Sep 20, 2018
San Diego County, CA
Administrative
Writ
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO DECLARE PLAINTIFF AS EMPLOYEE DENIED. TRIABLE ISSUE OF FACT AS TO STATUS OF PLAINTIFF WHETHER INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR OR EMPLOYEE. (302/AJR/RS)
SOLTANOVICH, JOSEPH (APPELLANT) VS. BLACK SEA CORPORATION (RESPONDENT)
CGC01191098
Nov 15, 2002
San Francisco County, CA
Nothing in this section subjects a public entity to liability for the act or omission of an independent contractor if the public entity would not have been liable for the injury had the act or omission been that of an employee of the public entity.” (Gov. Code, § 815.4.) These statutes address the vicarious liability of City. For these statutes to apply, the agent, employee or independent contractor must have liability.
MARIPOSA PEREZ ET AL VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES ET AL
BC623417
Oct 26, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Auto
Again, defendants have shown that Thomas was not their employee and that he was acting as an independent contractor at the time of the accident, so they cannot be held liable for hiring him, or failing to properly train and supervise him.
MEDEIROS V. TRIPLE T TRUCKING, INC.
16CECG00060
Aug 20, 2018
Fresno County, CA
Medaris responded to written discovery that he was not acting within the course and scope of his independent contractor agreement with My News at the time of the accident. (UMF No. 32.) “‘An employer is generally liable for negligent acts of an employee performed within the scope of the employment, but if an independent contractor rather than master and servant relationship exists, the independent contractor usually is alone liable for his negligent acts.’” (Millsap v.
JUAN CARLOS QUAN VS KEITH MEDARIS ET AL
BC639348
May 02, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Auto
Such cases answer the question of whether and when the hirer of an independent contractor is liable for negligence as a result of work done by or work involving the independent contractor’s employees or subcontractors. (See, e.g., Kinsman v. Unocal Corp. (2005) 37 Cal.4th 659, 667-672 (listing cases).) Kinsman itself dealt with the question of what premises liability duty a landowner owes to the employee of an independent contractor when the landowner hired the independent contractor. (Id. at 672-73.)
KIM V. LCN VENTURES LLC
12CECG02471
Jul 11, 2016
Fresno County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Paragraph 21 of the First Amended Complaint (FAC) alleges that plaintiff was an independent contractor. The court must accept that this allegation as true. Nothing in the FAC or that is judicially noticeable establishes that plaintiff was an employee. The determination whether one is an employee or independent contractor is done on a case by case factual involving the consideration of numerous factors. (S.G. Borello & Sons, Inc. v. State Dept. of Indus Relations (1989) 48 Cal.3d. 341).
JOHN DOE VS. KINK.COM ET AL
CGC15545540
Feb 05, 2016
San Francisco County, CA
Although plaintiff does not expressly allege that he was an independent contractor, nothing in the complaint or that is judicially noticeable establishes that he was an employee. The determination whether a person is an employee or independent contractor is done on a case by case basis involving the consideration of numerous factors. (S.G. Borello & Sons, Inc. v. State Dept. of Industrial Relations (1989) 48 Cal.3d. 341.)
JOSHUA RODGERS VS. KINK.COM ET AL
CGC15547036
Feb 22, 2016
San Francisco County, CA
Although plaintiff does not expressly allege that she was an independent contractor, nothing in the complaint or that is judicially noticeable establishes that she was an employee. The determination whether a person is an employee or independent contractor is done on a case by case basis involving the consideration of numerous factors. (S.G. Borello & Sons, Inc. v. State Dept. of Industrial Relations (1989) 48 Cal.3d. 341.)
CAMERON ADAMS VS. KINK.COM ET AL
CGC15547035
Feb 22, 2016
San Francisco County, CA
Aurasteh was an independent contractor of Defendant (Warren Decl. ¶¶ 4, 10, 13, 14). The evidence before the Court is sufficient to create a triable issue as to whether Plaintiff formed a reasonable belief that Dr.
AMANDA WARREN VS. LAMBRIDIS DENTAL CORPORATION
56-2009-00359668-CL-MM-SIM
Jul 27, 2010
Ventura County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Medical Malpractice
Defendant also argues that “other California statutes make it clear that Labor Code section 350 does not encompass independent contractor relationships. (Id. at p. 6:25-26.) Defendant asserts that “other provisions of California law show that Sections 350, 351, and 353 only apply to traditional employment – not independent contractor – relationships.” (Id. at p. 7:5-6.)
AMINE OUDOUCHE IN HIS REPRESENTATIVE CAPACITY UNDER THE PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL ACT VS AMAZON FLEX, A WASHINGTON CORPORATION, AND DOES 1 THROUGH 100, INCLUSIVE
19STCV15965
Feb 06, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Other Employment
Maruichi argues that while the complaint alleged that Decedent was an employee of Maruichi, the FAC now alleges that Decedent was an independent contractor of Maruichi. Maruichi contends that such a change in pleadings is an attempt by Plaintiffs to circumvent the worker’s compensation exclusive remedy doctrine.
CHASE HOLLOWAY ET AL VS MARUICHI AMERICAN CORPORATION
BC681620
May 23, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
Tender Heart Home Care Agency, LLC (2019) 31 Cal.App.5th 232, 258 (plaintiff established disputed issue of fact on summary judgment regarding her status as independent contractor or employee under either control over wages test and common law test; plaintiff established agreement referring to her as independent contractor was offered on a take it or leave it basis); Linton v. Desoto Cab Company, Inc.
RENNY SLATKIN VS ENERGYPORT, INC., ET AL.
22SMCV01457
Aug 24, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
HP provides evidence that Camarillo Drilling was paid on a project-by-project basis which is “consistent with an arrangement of an independent contractor relationship rather than an employee relationship.” HP does not provide any authority to support this contention. HP provides evidence that Camarillo Drilling did not perform work exclusively for HP prior to the date of the incident, but no authority is provided to indicate this supports a finding that Camarillo Drilling was an independent contractor.
ARCEGA VS RODRIGUEZ
RIC2002210
Jan 31, 2023
Riverside County, CA
Privette renders the hirer of an independent contractor immune from liability to the independent contractors employee even when the basis for liability was that the hirer failed to provide in the contract that the contractor must take special precautions to avert the risks of work. [Citation.]
GERARDO MARTINEZ VS 1645 VINE REAL ESTATE, LLC, ET AL.
23STCV11647
Nov 16, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Defendant contends the masseuse, Bozhong Shan aka Michael, was not an employee but an independent contractor. Defendant argues that under California law it is neither directly nor vicariously liable for the alleged sexual battery.
HICKS VS MASSAGE OASIS
37-2017-00013459-CU-PO-CTL
May 03, 2018
San Diego County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Section 2781 addresses the determination of employee or independent contractor status in cases involving the construction industry, contractors and subcontractors.
HOELZER, MONIKA VS ROBBINS STITES, ET AL.,
SC127710
May 05, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
independent contractor.”
MSC18-01451
Dec 08, 2021
Contra Costa County, CA
THE APPLICABILITY OF THE COMMERICAL RULES WAS ADDRESSED IN CASE NUMBER 464469 AS WAS PLAINTIFF'S STATUS AS AN EMPLOYEE OR INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. THE COURT ORDERED THE MATTER TO ARBITRATION. PLAINTIFF DID NOT CHALLENGE THE RULING BUT DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT. NOW PLAINTIFF FILES AN ACTION ALLEGING SHE IS AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR AND ASSERTS THE A.A.A. RULES OF COMMERICIAL ARBITRATION ARE PROCEDURALLY AND SUBSTANTIVELY UNCONSCIONABLE.
CAROLINE R HOWELL VS. CORINTHIAN COLLEGES, INC. DBA BRYMAN COLLEGE ET AL
CGC08473141
Jun 11, 2008
San Francisco County, CA
Triable issue of fact raised regarding the nature of contract, and whether Bonhach was an at will employee or independent contractor. The language of the 6/18/04 email is ambiguous, referencing an "at will" relationship and then refers to plaintiff as a consultant. Both parties' depositions support Bonhach discretion to conduct himself similar to an independent contractor (Bonhach depos pp. 103, 118; Leff depo p. 138). Triable issues of fact whether contract breached and whether damages sustained.
JEFFREY BONHACH VS. MALIBU PIER PARTNERS LLC A DELAWARE PARTNERSHIP ET AL
CGC07465082
Aug 17, 2009
San Francisco County, CA
Under Labor Code, §2750.5, there is a rebuttable presumption affecting the burden of proof that worker performing services for which a license is required, or who is performing such services who a person who is required to obtain such a license is an employee rather than an independent contractor.
ZHENG TAN VS JOSEPH CHEN
BC608388
Feb 05, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
Schriefer (1991) 228 Cal.App.3d 1608] at page 1617, explained the interaction of section 2750.5 with section 3352, subdivision (h) as follows: "Section 2750.5 supplements the definitions of employee and independent contractor found in the workers' compensation statutory scheme. It does not purport to override those definitions. If, ...
EDUARDO MILLA VS. LEANDRO ORBITA
37-2015-00037912-CU-PO-CTL
Feb 23, 2017
San Diego County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Independent Contractors vs Employee Defendants claim that Defendants did not directly hire Plaintiff to perform the work, but rather Defendants gardener, Jose Gutierrez (Gutierrez) did so after they indicated they wanted their trees trimmed. (SSUMF 9-11.) Defendants speak at length about whether Plaintiff is considered an employee or an independent contractor, but never discussed whether Guiterrez is an employee or independent contractor.
JUAN MATUTE VS AVO AMIRIAN
21STCV36340
Mar 09, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Turner argues that Plaintiff is an employee of NGI, an independent contractor, who seeks to recover damages from the hirer (Turner) of the contractor (NGI) for workplace injuries and none of the exceptions apply. There are two circumstances in which Privette does not apply, and an injured employee of an independent contractor may recover in tort from the party which hired that independent contractor. The first was set forth in Hooker v.
GARCIA VS. TURNER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
30-2018-01036026
Jul 19, 2021
Orange County, CA
Independent Contractors vs Employee Defendants claim that Defendants did not directly hire Plaintiff to perform the work, but rather Defendants gardener, Jose Gutierrez (Gutierrez) did so after they indicated they wanted their trees trimmed. (SSUMF 9-11.) Defendants speak at length about whether Plaintiff is considered an employee or an independent contractor, but never discussed whether Guiterrez is an employee or independent contractor.
JUAN MATUTE VS AVO AMIRIAN
21STCV36340
Mar 14, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Galaxy attempts to extend the Privette decision to apply to preclude recovery from anyone who hires an independent contractor when that independent contractor’s negligence causes injury to a third party. This argument stretches Privette beyond the breaking point. Plaintiff here was not an employee of Aspen Builders or MC Electric, and this case has nothing to do with workers’ compensation. Plaintiff was a theater patron attempting to see the movie Trainwreck.
AVILA, CHRISTOPHER VS. ASPEN BUILDERS INC
2026160
Mar 04, 2020
Stanislaus County, CA
The nondelegable duties doctrine prevents a party that owes a duty to others from evading responsibility by claiming to have delegated that duty to an independent contractor hired to do the necessary work. The doctrine applies when the duty preexists and does not arise from the contract with the independent contractor. ( SeaBright Ins. Co. v. US Airways, Inc. (2011) 52 Cal.4th 590, 60001.)
BENJAMIN KIMSEY VS SPEARMINT RHINO CONSULTING WORLDWIDE, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, ET AL.
19STCV39149
Jun 09, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Please wait a moment while we load this page.