What is the Workers & Independent Contractors bill (AB 5)?

Useful Rulings on Workers & Independent Contractors – Assembly Bill 5 (“AB 5”)

Recent Rulings on Workers & Independent Contractors – Assembly Bill 5 (“AB 5”)

ARMINEH TAVOOSIAN VS RAGING WATERS OF CALIFORNIA LTD ET AL

Mission Ready Mix (1990) 224 Cal.App.3d 104, 123 [finding an employee did not assume the risk of an obvious danger when the employee’s employment required him to encounter a dangerous condition].) Defendant Festival’s undisputed material facts establish the following. Plaintiff alleges she sustained injuries as a result of slipping and falling while walking on Defendant Festival’s premises. (UMF No. 1; FAC, ¶¶ 17-18.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

LEE VS WILKINS

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

  • Hearing

GEOFFREY BENNETT, AS ATTORNEY IN FACT FOR CLEAVES M. BENNETT, AND AS SUCCESSOR TRUSTEE OF THE CLEAVES M. BENNETT LIVING TRUST VS ELIZABETH CHAI-CHANG, ET AL.

Rptr. 483] [not unreasonable as matter of law to rely on fraudulent appraisal where party does not have expertise, other party has superior knowledge, and nothing facially alerts party to need for independent evaluation].)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

HASHEM BAREKZAI VS CHEMICAL TRANSFER COMPANY, INC.

(“Defendant”) or West Coast Leasing LLC and whom Defendant classified as independent contractors in the State of California since May 16, 2014 to the time of certification.” (Plaintiff’s MPA, p. 1.) Ordinarily, employers are required to reimburse employees for expenses necessary to perform the work for which the employee is hired. (Labor Code § 2802.)

  • Hearing

  • Judge Jayne Lee
  • County

    San Joaquin County, CA

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

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

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

PICCOLO VS GOJUMP OCEANSIDE LLC [E-FILE]

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

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

LOGACHEV VS CERNA HEALTHCARE, LLC

At the same time, the settlement releases misclassification claims, and the operative FAC notes the DLSE investigated whether Defendants misclassified employees as independent contractors. If the settlement class is meant to cover persons who are in fact classified (but allegedly misclassified) as independent contractors, how are they encompassed by a class limited to non-exempt employees? 11. Did the parties conduct any formal discovery? 12. Counsel reviewed a 20% sample of time and pay data.

  • Hearing

PICCOLO VS GOJUMP OCEANSIDE LLC [E-FILE]

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

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

NORMA J. PALOMO VS CENTAUR HOLDINGS UNITED STATES, INC.

“[T]he primary assumption of risk doctrine is not limited to activities classified as sports, but applies as well to other recreational activities ‘involving an inherent risk of injury to voluntary participants . . . where the risk cannot be eliminated without altering the fundamental nature of the activity.’” (Nalwa, supra, 55 Cal.4th at p. 1156 [citing Beninati v. Black Rock City, LLC (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 650, 658].)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

TAROKH VS INTEGRAL PROJECT OWNER II LLC

Further, Civil Code section 3294(b) provides: "An employer shall not be liable for damages pursuant to subdivision (a), based upon acts of an employee of the employer, unless the employer had advance knowledge of the unfitness of the employee and employed him or her with a conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others or authorized or ratified the wrongful conduct for which the damages are awarded or was personally guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

FLORES V. SANTA BARBARA FARMS

While the court “must stop short of the detailed and thorough investigation that it would undertake if it were actually trying the case,” it must eschew any rubber stamp approval in favor of an independent evaluation. (Munoz v. BCI Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of Los Angeles, supra, 186 Cal.App.4th at pp. 407–08.)

  • Hearing

WOO VS ISODIOL INTERNATIONAL INC

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

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

ALL OF US OR NONE-L A CHAPTER ET AL VS L A UNIFIED SCHOOL DI

A school district shall not retain in employment a current classified employee who has been convicted of a violent or serious felony, and who is a temporary, substitute, or a probationary employee who has not attained permanent status." In overruling Defendants’ previous demurrer to the same cause of action, this court relied on Newland v. Board of Governors ("Newland") (1977) 19 Ca1.3d 705.

  • Hearing

ANDREA SPEARS VS. HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA INC

HNCA also contends that Arana has stipulated he is no longer pursuing PAGA claims based on his having been misclassified as an exempt employee, or that any sort of bonus was not included in the regular rate when calculating overtime. "Post-Pleading" Evidentiary Motion To Strike The Court's initial concern with the present motion is whether it is procedurally proper and supported by law.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

JUAN LIMON GONZALEZ VS PEDRO OROPEZA

Therefore, it established a two-tier test for determining whether a worker should be classified as an employee, or independent contractor. The principal tier 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. (Id.)

  • Hearing

  • Judge Jayne Lee
  • County

    San Joaquin County, CA

JESUS MANCILLA VS DOLLAR TREE STORES INC

Civil Penalties to Aggrieved Employees: the remaining 25% of the Civil Penalties Fund is to be distributed to the Aggrieved Employees, pursuant to claims by each Aggrieved Employee. After an Aggrieved Employee makes a claim, the Settlement Administrator will distribute payment based on the pay periods each Aggrieved Employee worked during the Covered Period.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD VS BELLFLOWER UNIFIED SCHO

Since the District now is fiscally independent the District has been told by LACOE officials that LACOE continues to maintain those records, but those records do not show what days the employee worked or for what days the employee was paid. The District cannot issue payment without some credible written record that the payment is due.” District did not attach a declaration or other evidence to the return or amended return.

  • Hearing

TESS TRUDGEON V. MARGARITA ADVENTURES, LLC

Where, as here, the defendant is an employer, the employer shall not be liable for punitive damages based upon acts of an employee of the employer, unless the employer had advance knowledge of the unfitness of the employee and employed him or her with a conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others or authorized or ratified the wrongful conduct for which the damages are awarded or was personally guilty of oppression, fraud or malice. (Civ. Code, § 3294(b).)

  • Hearing

KAYVAN GHAVIM VS COBIRD, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, ET AL.

Hammond, repeatedly promised to put Plaintiff on payroll as a W-2 employee but failed to do so. (FAC, ¶ 17; Ghavim Decl. ¶ 4.) Plaintiff asserts having earned $16,666.67 per month, or annually $200,000. (FAC, ¶ 12.) Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff states a claim that he is to be classified as an employee rather than an independent contractor during his employment. Next, Plaintiff asserts having suffered injury as a result of not having received itemized wage statements, and the nonpayment of wages.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

MANN VS MORENO VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

Because this action involves the discipline and termination of a public employee, the Court may exercise independent judgment on the evidence. In applying independent judgment, a court must accord a strong presumption of correctness to administrative findings. The burden rests upon the complaining party to show that the administrative decision is contrary to the weight of the evidence. (Fukuda v. City of Angels, supra, 20 Cal.4th at 816-817.)

  • Hearing

THE KONIGSBERG COMPANY, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL. VS WARNER BROS. ENTERTAINMENT INC.,A DELAWARE CORPORATION, ET AL.

However, Plaintiffs also allege Defendants classified the ESTs as videograms, exercising their discretion in determining how these ESTs were to be accounted for under the 1986 Agreement. Plaintiffs allege Defendants intentionally interpreted the definitions of Adjusted Gross Revenues and Net Profits under the 1986 Agreement in a manner that “artificially” deflated Plaintiffs’ profits.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

  • Judge

    H. Jay Ford

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

ODYSSEY UNLIMITED SECURITY INC VS US SECURITY ASSOCIATES INC

As to the employee/independent contractor issue, under SSUMF 2 Staff Pro submits evidence establishing that "[a] material term of the Service Agreement was that Odyssey was required to provide StaffPro with employees, not independent contractors" and under SSUMF 3 that "Maria Ramirez, the principal of Odyssey, testified that she understood that Odyssey would provide employees, and not independent contractors." In opposition as to SSUMF 2, Plaintiff states: 2.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

PISMO BEACH SELF-STORAGE, L.P. V. CITY OF PISMO BEACH, ET AL.

Feeser concluded that the “former self- storage property” on Petitioner’s Project site used 25% to 176% more water compared to other properties classified as office land use. (AR 4410.) Ms. Feeser thus rejected the City’s fee consultant’s proposal to reduce the water and wastewater fees by 1/3. (Id.) However, other than an email from Ms.

  • Hearing

ALEJANDRA REYES VS KASTL AMUSEMENTS ET AL

Request for Continuance Plaintiff has requested a continuance pursuant to CCP section 437c(h) in the event the Court is inclined to grant the motion so that Plaintiff can depose Kevin Knoll, the former employee of Kastl who was operating the ride at the time Plaintiff sustained her injuries.

  • Hearing

  • Judge

    Lori Ann Fournier or Olivia Rosales

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

CITY OF SANTA MONICA VS CECIL MCNABB, ET AL.,

Second Cause of Action: Housing Anti-Discrimination Ordinance Santa Monica Municipal Code section 4.28.030, subdivision (g), makes it “unlawful for any person offering for rent or lease, renting, leasing, or listing any housing accommodation, or any authorized agent or employee of such person, to . . .

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Discrimination/Harass

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 17     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.