Independent Contractors vs. Employees in California

What Are Independent Contractors vs. Employees?

Governing Tests For Employee/Independent Contractor Classification

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.)

Understanding the Applicable Standard Under Dynamex

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:

  1. 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;
  2. that the worker performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity's business; and
  3. 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.”

(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.)

Three Prongs of Dynamex

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 “Common Law” Test

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.)

Application of the Common Law Test

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

  1. whether the one performing services is engaged in a distinct occupation or business;
  2. the kind of occupation, with reference to whether, in the locality, the work is usually done under the direction of the principal or by a specialist without supervision;
  3. the skill required in the particular occupation;
  4. whether the principal or the worker supplies the instrumentalities, tools, and the place of work for the person doing the work;
  5. the length of time for which the services are to be performed;
  6. the method of payment, whether by the time or by the job;
  7. whether or not the work is a part of the regular business of the principal; and
  8. whether or not the parties believe they are creating the relationship of employer-employee.

(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 “Control” Test

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.)

Rulings for Independent Contractors vs. Employees in California

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 ?

  • Name

    THOMAS IBARRA VS WILLIAM J ESCOBAR

  • Case No.

    CIV247415

  • Hearing

    Mar 06, 2009

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.

  • Name

    CONTRERAS-PERALES VS BRUNO

  • Case No.

    37-2016-00043310-CU-PO-CTL

  • Hearing

    Nov 07, 2017

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).

  • Name

    COREY STRAND VS EDWARD L GROSS ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC585491

  • Hearing

    Jan 12, 2017

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.

  • Name

    YAMAGUCHI V. AMPERSAND PUBLISHING, LLC

  • Case No.

    1483950

  • Hearing

    Jan 26, 2016

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.

  • Name

    HADI HILLO VS RANDALL HAYES ASSOCIATES INC ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC552021

  • Hearing

    Oct 24, 2016

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.

  • Name

    LEMUS VS UP N DOWN SCAFFOLDING INC

  • Case No.

    37-2018-00035721-CU-PO-CTL

  • Hearing

    Sep 09, 2021

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.

  • Name

    HUGO RIVAS VS DANIELLE DABBS ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC709868

  • Hearing

    Sep 07, 2018

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.

  • Name

    WARD VS. DENTAL HEALTH-CORONA INC

  • Case No.

    RIC1500523

  • Hearing

    Oct 21, 2016

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.

  • Name

    JUANITA DEVELASCO VS. ATLAS CONSTRUCTION SUPPLY

  • Case No.

    37-2017-00029572-CU-PO-CTL

  • Hearing

    Jan 17, 2019

“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).)

  • Name

    HAIG SEREBRAKIAN VS SHEMSHAD FOOD PROD INC., ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19STCV28997

  • Hearing

    Jan 06, 2020

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].)

  • Name

    BRIAN SALATINO VS WESTFIELD LLC

  • Case No.

    37-2016-00036904-CU-PO-CTL

  • Hearing

    Jul 26, 2018

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.

  • Name

    AUDREY WAIGHT-WILLIAM VS EDUARDO ESQUIVEL ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC600008

  • Hearing

    Aug 21, 2017

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.

  • Name

    JACKSON, PHILLIP VS TAMARA, TIFFIANY

  • Case No.

    16K12702

  • Hearing

    Mar 14, 2017

  • Judge

    Elaine Lu or Yolanda Orozco

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    JUANITA DEVELASCO VS. ATLAS CONSTRUCTION SUPPLY

  • Case No.

    37-2017-00029572-CU-PO-CTL

  • Hearing

    Feb 28, 2019

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.

  • Name

    PACIFIC CREDIT EXCHANGE VS BLASE

  • Case No.

    IN033652

  • Hearing

    Mar 27, 2019

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).

  • Name

    SCHAFFER VS. MARIANNA INDUSTRIES, INC.

  • Case No.

    30-2018-00999975-CU-WT-CXC

  • Hearing

    May 10, 2019

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.

  • Name

    GUILLERMO ORTIZ VS. CARL C TROST ET AL

  • Case No.

    CGC15547738

  • Hearing

    Jan 31, 2017

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.

  • Name

    ROBERTO RANGEL VS. MARTINEZ REFINING COMPANY, LLC

  • Case No.

    C23-00617

  • Hearing

    Feb 15, 2024

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

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.

  • Name

    LORIANNE SAWIN VS. MCCLATCHY COMPANY

  • Case No.

    34-2009-00033950-CL-OE-GDS

  • Hearing

    Dec 26, 2013

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.

  • Name

    MCT GROUP VS CAPPS

  • Case No.

    37-2014-00043811-CL-CL-NC

  • Hearing

    Mar 27, 2019

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.

  • Name

    FATEMI VS. A FAMILY DENTIST IN SAN MARCOS & CARLSBAD

  • Case No.

    37-2018-00024851-CU-MM-NC

  • Hearing

    Aug 15, 2019

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.

  • Name

    SIMON SEO VS PACIFIC LAND BUILDERS INC

  • Case No.

    BC632528

  • Hearing

    Jan 04, 2019

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.

  • Case No.

    MSC20-01632

  • Hearing

    Oct 31, 2022

  • County

    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. . . .

  • Name

    LEONCIO GARCIA VS. TONY CORTEZ

  • Case No.

    56-2009-00343797-CU-PO-VTA

  • Hearing

    Jul 21, 2010

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.

  • Name

    YUJI HASEGAWA VS LOCAL JAPAN INC,, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    18STCV01106

  • Hearing

    Feb 03, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    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.

  • Name

    YAMAGUCHI V. AMPERSAND PUBLISHING, LLC

  • Case No.

    1483950

  • Hearing

    Jan 12, 2016

contractor, not an employee.

  • Name

    ROLDAN VS DAL PEZZO

  • Case No.

    37-2021-00031336-CU-PO-CTL

  • Hearing

    Jul 28, 2023

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    ISMAEL SOLIS VS JOSEPH F. COYNE, JR., ET AL.

  • Case No.

    21STCV08166

  • Hearing

    Nov 09, 2022

  • County

    Los Angeles 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.

  • Name

    SALEK LAW FIRM VS. IRON WORK INDUSTRIES, INC.

  • Case No.

    30-2017-00897687-CL-BC-CJC

  • Hearing

    Nov 14, 2018

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.

  • Name

    PRISCILLA R. MARZAN VS RICHARD JANOV, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    22STCV06241

  • Hearing

    Jun 07, 2022

  • County

    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.)

  • Name

    HUGO GUZMAN VS. MCDONALD'S RESTAURANTS OF CALIFORNIA, INC.

  • Case No.

    20CECG02082

  • Hearing

    Oct 06, 2021

  • County

    Fresno 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.

  • Name

    AARON YOUNG VS NEA DELIVERY LLC ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC621762

  • Hearing

    Apr 27, 2018

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.

  • Name

    OSCAR SANCHEZ-AYON VS ROBERT ERICKSON

  • Case No.

    BC591649

  • Hearing

    Feb 02, 2017

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.)

  • Name

    HOLE V. HU

  • Case No.

    SCV-260843

  • Hearing

    Nov 16, 2018

  • Judge

    René Auguste Chouteau

  • County

    Sonoma County, CA

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."].)

  • Name

    ARMANDO PENA ET AL VS. HENSEL PHELPS / GENSLER / KUTH RANIERI JOINT ET AL

  • Case No.

    CGC19572726

  • Hearing

    Jun 11, 2021

  • County

    San Francisco 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.

  • Name

    MUSIJ VS NVISION GLASS

  • Case No.

    37-2015-00029331-CU-PO-CTL

  • Hearing

    Nov 17, 2016

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.

  • Name

    BROTHERS VS ORTEGA

  • Case No.

    RIC1904276

  • Hearing

    Jan 19, 2023

  • County

    Riverside 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.

  • Name

    MARCOS VALENZUELA ET AL VS NORTHWOOD INVESTORS LLC ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC648728

  • Hearing

    Nov 02, 2018

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

  • Name

    BLAKELY VS CITY OF CORONA

  • Case No.

    CVRI2100943

  • Hearing

    Aug 10, 2021

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.

  • Name

    FELIX INTERIANO VS G.T.O. AUTO GLASS CORPORATION, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    22STCV29647

  • Hearing

    Feb 29, 2024

  • County

    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).

  • Name

    AZITA SIMONI VS DERMATOLOGY & LASER MEDICAL CENTER, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20STCV31916

  • Hearing

    Jan 20, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

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.

  • Name

    EMINA MILA YOUNG VS PEGASUS ELITE AVIATION, INC.

  • Case No.

    20STCV32434

  • Hearing

    May 11, 2021

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.

  • Name

    EMINA MILA YOUNG VS PEGASUS ELITE AVIATION, INC.

  • Case No.

    20STCV32434

  • Hearing

    Apr 05, 2021

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.

  • Name

    EMINA MILA YOUNG VS PEGASUS ELITE AVIATION, INC.

  • Case No.

    20STCV32434

  • Hearing

    May 04, 2021

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.

  • Name

    EMINA MILA YOUNG VS PEGASUS ELITE AVIATION, INC.

  • Case No.

    20STCV32434

  • Hearing

    May 04, 2021

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

  • Name

    RONALD ORTIZ VS RANDALL POMEROY, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20STCV06823

  • Hearing

    Dec 18, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

“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.

  • Name

    TAITANO VS ISA & EST INC

  • Case No.

    RIC2002763

  • Hearing

    Nov 10, 2022

  • County

    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.)

  • Name

    NICOLE ARGUINZONI-GIL VS PRUDENCE HALL MD INC ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC702384

  • Hearing

    Apr 02, 2019

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.

  • Name

    ORTIZ VS. D/T CARSON ENTERPRISES INC

  • Case No.

    RIC 1803594

  • Hearing

    Oct 16, 2018

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.

  • Name

    JOSE NOEL RODRIGUEZ-GONZALEZ ET AL. VS SUNNYVALLEY SMOKED MEATS, INC., A CORPORATION ET AL.

  • Case No.

    STK-CV-UPI-2016-0003654

  • Hearing

    Jul 23, 2019

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.

  • Name

    CHRISTOPHER CLANTON VS. XP SYSTEMS CORPORATION

  • Case No.

    56-2016-00481127-CU-PO-VTA

  • Hearing

    Feb 05, 2018

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.]

  • Name

    CAROLYN YOUNG VS TURNER TURNER CONSTRUCTION

  • Case No.

    19STCV17982

  • Hearing

    Sep 17, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

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.

  • Name

    ELVA ZALDIVAR, ET AL. VS STEVE LEE, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19STCV20803

  • Hearing

    Dec 05, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

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)

  • Name

    SOLTANOVICH, JOSEPH (APPELLANT) VS. BLACK SEA CORPORATION (RESPONDENT)

  • Case No.

    CGC01191098

  • Hearing

    Nov 15, 2002

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.

  • Name

    PEREZ, ET AL. V. SHAE APARTMENTS, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    30-2018-00987765-CU-NP-CJC

  • Hearing

    Sep 27, 2019

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.

  • Name

    HELENE CAMPBELL VS MANCHESTER NAIL & SPA INC

  • Case No.

    BC612017

  • Hearing

    Jun 05, 2017

“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.

  • Name

    WYCINSKY VS COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE

  • Case No.

    RIC1902177

  • Hearing

    Mar 22, 2021

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.

  • Name

    ALCAZAR V. PETERS

  • Case No.

    30-2017-00939483-CU-PA-CJC

  • Hearing

    Jun 04, 2019

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.

  • Name

    MANUEL ESPINOZA ET AL VS GILLESPIE CORPORATION ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC585264

  • Hearing

    Mar 15, 2017

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.)

  • Name

    RONNY GRUNWALD VS DRIVE SHOPS, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

  • Case No.

    19STCV20373

  • Hearing

    Jan 07, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

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.

  • Name

    JOHN SWARTHOUT V. FORWARD AIR SOLUTIONS, INC.

  • Case No.

    15CVP-0194

  • Hearing

    Apr 18, 2017

  • County

    San Luis Obispo County, CA

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.

  • Name

    NEEBLE-DIAMOND V. HOTEL CALIFORNIA BY THE SEA, LLC

  • Case No.

    30-2019-01058756

  • Hearing

    Jun 26, 2020

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.

  • Name

    JENNIFER OLSBERG VS JOSEPH BATISTA

  • Case No.

    BC650617

  • Hearing

    Sep 03, 2019

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.

  • Name

    JENNIFER OLSBERG VS JOSEPH BATISTA

  • Case No.

    BC650617

  • Hearing

    Aug 29, 2019

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 . . .

  • Name

    MARCH LEVIN VS CARISSA TIMM ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC668005

  • Hearing

    Apr 02, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles 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.

  • Name

    JOSE G VILLAGRANA VS SCOTTYS GAS STATION

  • Case No.

    BC695007

  • Hearing

    Jul 18, 2019

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.)

  • Name

    ANTHONY STRIKE VS BAAK MEDIA, INC., ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19STCV28465

  • Hearing

    Jun 15, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

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.)

  • Name

    JOSHUA RODGERS VS. KINK.COM ET AL

  • Case No.

    CGC15547036

  • Hearing

    Feb 22, 2016

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.)

  • Name

    CAMERON ADAMS VS. KINK.COM ET AL

  • Case No.

    CGC15547035

  • Hearing

    Feb 22, 2016

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).

  • Name

    JOHN DOE VS. KINK.COM ET AL

  • Case No.

    CGC15545540

  • Hearing

    Feb 05, 2016

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.

  • Name

    PREMIER CAPITAL, LLC V. T.O.F. DEVELOPMENT CORP., ET AL

  • Case No.

    1468848

  • Hearing

    May 17, 2023

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.

  • Name

    CAROLINE R HOWELL VS. CORINTHIAN COLLEGES, INC. DBA BRYMAN COLLEGE ET AL

  • Case No.

    CGC08473141

  • Hearing

    Jun 11, 2008

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.

  • Name

    JEFFREY BONHACH VS. MALIBU PIER PARTNERS LLC A DELAWARE PARTNERSHIP ET AL

  • Case No.

    CGC07465082

  • Hearing

    Aug 17, 2009

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.

  • Name

    HUYNH VS DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS DIVISION OF LABOR STANDARDS ENFORCEMENT

  • Case No.

    37-2018-00019956-CU-WM-CTL

  • Hearing

    Sep 20, 2018

“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.)

  • Name

    ANTONIO CUTTS VS MORLEY BUILDERS INC ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC688363

  • Hearing

    Jan 16, 2020

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.

  • Name

    MARIPOSA PEREZ ET AL VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC623417

  • Hearing

    Oct 26, 2017

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.)

  • Name

    KIM V. LCN VENTURES LLC

  • Case No.

    12CECG02471

  • Hearing

    Jul 11, 2016

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.

  • Name

    KENNY YUM VS GEORGE WISZTREICH ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC597995

  • Hearing

    Nov 15, 2017

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.

  • Name

    RUSHTON HALBERT VS PRN MEDICAL AND SURGICAL COVERAGE LLC

  • Case No.

    BC636444

  • Hearing

    Jan 25, 2019

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.

  • Name

    AMANDA WARREN VS. LAMBRIDIS DENTAL CORPORATION

  • Case No.

    56-2009-00359668-CL-MM-SIM

  • Hearing

    Jul 27, 2010

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

  • Name

    RONALD ORTIZ VS RANDALL POMEROY, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20STCV06823

  • Hearing

    Oct 26, 2023

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    LAZARO MORALES VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC700324

  • Hearing

    Sep 27, 2019

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..

  • Name

    OBDULIA MEZA, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO HELIODORO MEZA, ET AL. VS RAM BAHETI, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19STCV21857

  • Hearing

    Dec 23, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles 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.

  • Name

    JUAN CARLOS QUAN VS KEITH MEDARIS ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC639348

  • Hearing

    May 02, 2018

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.

  • Name

    MEDEIROS V. TRIPLE T TRUCKING, INC.

  • Case No.

    16CECG00060

  • Hearing

    Aug 20, 2018

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.

  • Name

    HICKS VS MASSAGE OASIS

  • Case No.

    37-2017-00013459-CU-PO-CTL

  • Hearing

    May 03, 2018

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.

  • Name

    ARCEGA VS RODRIGUEZ

  • Case No.

    RIC2002210

  • Hearing

    Jan 31, 2023

  • County

    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.]

  • Name

    GERARDO MARTINEZ VS 1645 VINE REAL ESTATE, LLC, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    23STCV11647

  • Hearing

    Nov 16, 2023

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    AVILA, CHRISTOPHER VS. ASPEN BUILDERS INC

  • Case No.

    2026160

  • Hearing

    Mar 04, 2020

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.)

  • Name

    AMINE OUDOUCHE IN HIS REPRESENTATIVE CAPACITY UNDER THE PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL ACT VS AMAZON FLEX, A WASHINGTON CORPORATION, AND DOES 1 THROUGH 100, INCLUSIVE

  • Case No.

    19STCV15965

  • Hearing

    Feb 06, 2020

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.

  • Name

    RENNY SLATKIN VS ENERGYPORT, INC., ET AL.

  • Case No.

    22SMCV01457

  • Hearing

    Aug 24, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

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.

  • Name

    CHASE HOLLOWAY ET AL VS MARUICHI AMERICAN CORPORATION

  • Case No.

    BC681620

  • Hearing

    May 23, 2018

Hence, the final determination on the threshold issue of the classification of the Quinn plaintiff’s status as an employee or independent contractor would determine whether Plaintiff in this case may proceed with her claims against LPL. Here, all of Plaintiff’s claims are based on the allegations that she is an employee of Defendant LPL and Householder Defendants.

  • Name

    MIDDLETON VS HOUSEHOLDER GROUP ESTATE AND RETIREMENT SPECIALIST, LLC

  • Case No.

    CVRI2203570

  • Hearing

    Jan 24, 2023

  • County

    Riverside County, CA

On the merits, the court notes that Labor Code section 3357 provides that “Any person rendering service for another, other than as an independent contractor, or unless expressly excluded herein, is presumed to be an employee.” This statute is held to include a “general presumption” that any person ‘in service to another’ is an employee and the burden is on the party denying the employment relationship to prove the person rendering services was an independent contractor rather than an employee. S.G.

  • Name

    ZHENG TING LI, VS. SUIXI ZHANG, AN INDIVIDUAL

  • Case No.

    EC066411

  • Hearing

    Nov 03, 2017

  • County

    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, ...

  • Name

    EDUARDO MILLA VS. LEANDRO ORBITA

  • Case No.

    37-2015-00037912-CU-PO-CTL

  • Hearing

    Feb 23, 2017

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT DENY-TRIABLE ISSUE OF FACT PLAINTIFF'S STATUS AS EMPLOYEE OR INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR.(302/DSM/PB)

  • Name

    TRACEY BUEL VS. DEJA VU, INC. (DBA THE HUNGRY I) ET AL

  • Case No.

    CGC03424462

  • Hearing

    Aug 06, 2004

Section 2781 addresses the determination of employee or independent contractor status in cases involving the construction industry, contractors and subcontractors.

  • Name

    HOELZER, MONIKA VS ROBBINS STITES, ET AL.,

  • Case No.

    SC127710

  • Hearing

    May 05, 2022

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Furthermore, the court takes no position concerning the legal effect of any classification of mother as employee vs. independent contractor. Counsel should be sure the trust estate does not run afoul of any labor laws, IRS statutes and regulations, and recent case law concerning classification of a caretaker as an employee vs. independent contractor. The next account and report for the period 2/2/19 – 2/1/21 shall be filed by 3/15/21 and set for a hearing on 5/4/21.

  • Name

    IN RE THE HANNAH JUNE FIELD SPECIAL NEEDS TRUST

  • Case No.

    56-2014-00453221-PR-TR-OXN

  • Hearing

    May 07, 2019

independent contractor.”

  • Case No.

    MSC18-01451

  • Hearing

    Dec 08, 2021

  • County

    Contra Costa 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.)

  • Name

    BENJAMIN KIMSEY VS SPEARMINT RHINO CONSULTING WORLDWIDE, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19STCV39149

  • Hearing

    Jun 09, 2022

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Please wait a moment while we load this page.

New Envelope