Justia California Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Demo Services employs product demonstrators, who are classified as “part-time, nonexempt, hourly employees eligible for overtime pay according to state and federal law.” Demonstrators are generally assigned to a single Costco. There is office space within each Costco for demonstrators. Espinoza, employed as a demonstrator from 2011-2016, received a “Demonstrator Handbook.” Espinoza worked four days a week and her regular shift lasted for six hours. Upon arriving at Costco, Espinoza went to the office, clocked in, reviewed her assignment, got her supplies, set up her cart, went to the floor near the product, and started demonstrating the product. Espinoza could only leave her demonstration area to take a break when an assigned “breaker” relieved her. At the end of her shift, Espinoza had 15 minutes to return her cart to the office, wash her dishes, store her supplies, then clock out, entering her lunch break time. Espinoza filed a class action, alleging Labor Code violations.The trial court granted Demo summary judgment, reasoning that the outside salesperson exemption applied because Espinoza did not work at a site owned or controlled by her employer. The court of appeal reversed. An employee working at a fixed site not owned or leased by the employer is not subject to the outside salesperson exemption where the employer controls the employee’s hours and working conditions. Demo assigned Espinoza to work a fixed site, within a small, designated area, and controlled her conditions of work. View "Espinoza v. Warehouse Demo Services, Inc." on Justia Law

In 2011, plaintiff R. Kemp was convicted, released from prison, and placed on parole. In 2020, Amazon.com, Inc. (Amazon) offered Kemp a job in Sacramento. Defendant Accurate Background LLC (Accurate) provided a background report to Amazon revealing Kemp’s criminal conviction. Amazon then withdrew its job offer. Because Kemp’s 2011 conviction predated the 2020 report by more than seven years, he filed a complaint alleging Accurate: (1) violated the California Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act (ICRAA); (2) violated the California Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act (CCRAA); and (3) derivatively violated the state’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL). Accurate filed a demurrer: Kemp’s parole ended in 2014, which predated the 2020 report by less than seven years. Accurate argued under the ICRAA and the CCRAA, “the term ‘parole’ refers to the end of the parole period,” thus barring liability. Alternatively, Accurate argued the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) preempted the state ICRAA, and therefore Kemp’s ICRAA claim was barred as a matter of law. The trial court overruled Accurate’s demurrer, in part, finding “the plain meaning of ‘from the date of . . . parole’ refers to the start date of conditional release.” The court sustained Accurate’s demurrer, in part, finding “the FCRA preempts the ICRAA claim.” Accurate and Kemp both filed petitions for extraordinary writ relief to the Court of Appeal. The Court held the phrase "from the date of parole" referred to the start date of parole, and the FCRA did not preempt Kemp’s ICRAA claim. Thus, the appellate court directed the trial court to vacate its prior order, which partially sustained Accurate’s demurrer, and to issue a new order overruling the demurrer in its entirety. View "Kemp v. Super. Ct." on Justia Law

The Bishop’s School (the School) terminated Chad Bishop’s (Bishop) employment as a teacher after it became aware of a text exchange between Bishop and a former student. Bishop filed a lawsuit asserting a breach of contract claim against the School and defamation claims against the School and Ron Kim, the Head of the School, based on the termination letter they sent to Bishop and a statement Kim made that was published in the student newspaper. Defendants filed a special motion to strike the first amended complaint as a strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP) as well as a demurrer. The trial court granted defendants’ anti-SLAPP motion as to the defamation claims but denied it as to the contract claim against the School. The court also overruled the School’s demurrer to the contract claim. Bishop appealed the anti-SLAPP ruling. On cross-appeal, the School challenged the court’s order denying anti-SLAPP protection for the contract claim. The School also sought a writ of mandate directing the trial court to sustain its demurrer to the contract claim. After review, the Court of appeal concluded: (1) defendants did not meet their burden to show that Bishop’s allegations regarding the termination letter, which supported the defamation claim, or the termination itself, which supported the contract claim, involved protected activity; (2) defendants met their burden to show that Kim’s statement was protected activity, and Bishop failed to show that the defamation claim as based on that activity had minimal merit; and (3) without having filed a writ petition, there was no basis for the School to seek writ relief from the court’s order overruling its demurrer ruling on the contract claim. The Court therefore affirmed in part and reversed in part the trial court’s order and remanded the matter with directions. View "Bishop v. The Bishop's School" on Justia Law

Plaintiff pursued a claim under the Labor Code Private Attorney General Act of 2004 against Defendants Premier Valley, Inc. (doing business as Century 21 MM) and Century 21 Real Estate LLC, to enforce civil penalties for violations of the Labor Code. The trial court sustained Defendants’ demurrer to the operative complaint without leave to amend. Plaintiff appealed. The appeal involved issues of statutory interpretation with regard to the following question: What is the applicable test or governing standard for determining whether a real estate salesperson is an “employee” or an “independent contractor” for purposes of the Labor Code’s wage and hour provisions? The resolution of this question turned on interpreting recently enacted Labor Code section 2778, subdivision (c)(1), and other provisions incorporated therein.   The Fifth Appellate District affirmed the trial court’s judgment. The court concluded that the applicable test for the purpose at hand is the test set forth in Unemployment Insurance Code sections 650 and 13004.1, as incorporated in Business and Professions Code section 10032, subdivision (b), which is itself incorporated in Labor Code section 2778, subdivision (c)(1). The trial court reached the same conclusion and applied the correct test in ruling on the Defendants’ demurrer.   The court held that under Labor Code Section 2778(c)(1), Plaintiff is an Independent Contractor as a matter of law. Further, the court held that Labor Code Section 2778(c)(1) is constitutional. Finally, the court found that Plaintiff’s separate employment agreement for his sales manager position is not relevant for purposes of his representative PAGA cause of action. View "Whitlach v. Premier Valley, Inc." on Justia Law

Petitioner-appellant Sharlene Allen was a former employee of the San Diego Convention Center Corporation (SDCCC). After SDCCC terminated Allen, she filed a class action lawsuit against SDCCC alleging various violations of the California Labor Code. The trial court largely sustained SDCCC’s demurrer to the complaint on the grounds that the corporation was exempt from liability as a government entity. The court, however, left intact one claim for untimely payment of final wages under Labor Code sections 201, 202, and 203,1 and derivative claims under the Unfair Competition Law and the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA). Allen then moved for class certification for her surviving causes of action. The trial court denied the motion based on Allen’s concession that her claim for untimely final payment was not viable because it was derivative of the other claims dismissed at the demurrer stage. Allen appealed the denial of the motion for class certification, which she claimed was the "death knell" of her class claims and thus, the lawsuit. She argued the trial court’s ruling on the demurrer was incorrect because SDCCC did not establish as a matter of law that it was exempt from liability. In response, SDCCC argued Allen’s appeal should have been dismissed as taken from a nonappealable order. Alternatively, SDCCC contended the trial court’s order sustaining its demurrer was correct, and the subsequent denial of class certification should be affirmed. The Court of Appeal rejected SDCCC’s assertion that the order was not appealable. However, the Court agreed that class certification was properly denied by the trial court and affirmed the order. View "Allen v. San Diego Convention Center Corp., Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff-appellant Bernell Beco filed suit against his former employer, defendant Fast Auto Loans, Inc. (Fast Auto) alleging 14 causes of action relating to the termination of his employment. Plaintiff alleged causes of action under with), including claims under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), numerous wage and hour violations under the Labor Code, wrongful termination, unfair competition, and additional tort claims. Fast Auto moved to compel arbitration, arguing that Beco had signed a valid arbitration agreement at the time he was hired. The trial court found the agreement unconscionable to the extent that severance would not cure the defects and declined to enforce it. After its review, the Court of Appeal agreed with the trial court that the agreement was unconscionable, and further rejected Fast Auto’s argument that the arbitrator, not the court, should have decided the issue of unconscionability. Additionally, because the agreement included numerous substantively unconscionable provisions, the appellate court found no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s decision not to sever them. View "Beco v. Fast Auto Loans, Inc." on Justia Law

Defendant, Simplified Labor Staffing Solutions, Inc. (Simplified) appealed an order denying its motion to compel arbitration of Plaintiff’s claims brought under the California Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA). Simplified’s motion was based on Plaintiff’s predispute agreement to arbitrate all claims arising from their employment relationship. The trial court understandably denied the motion based on a rule followed by numerous California Courts of Appeal that predispute agreements to arbitrate PAGA claims are unenforceable.   The Second Appellate District reversed and held that this rule cannot survive the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana (2022) U.S.[142 S.Ct. 1906] (Viking River). The court further held that the scope of the arbitration clause is to be determined by the arbitrator in accordance with the arbitration agreement. Specifically, the parties’ dispute about whether nonindividual PAGA claims are governed by the arbitration agreement, in the same way, individual PAGA claims are, is an issue for the arbitrator to address. View "Lewis v. Simplified Labor Staffing Solutions, Inc." on Justia Law

Appellants Balubhai Patel, DTWO & E, Inc. (DTWO), and Stuart Union, LLC (Stuart Union) (collectively, appellants) have been before this court numerous times in connection with a labor dispute with a former employee, Defendant, that resulted in two California Labor Commissioner orders (ODAs) in Defendant’s favor. The instant appeal challenges a superior court order forfeiting a bond Appellants had posted in an unsuccessful attempt to challenge the ODAs, as well as a judgment against them as bond principals.   The Second Appellate District affirmed. The court explained that the only bonds Appellants posted here were for the exact amount owed under the ODAs— not double or one and one-half times that amount. Thus, aside from the fact that, when Appellants posted the bonds, Appellants identified the bonds as undertakings related to their attempted section 98.2 appeal to the trial court, not an appeal with this court, the bonds were insufficient to stay the actions below based on the pendency of any appeal with this court. The trial court, therefore, did not lack jurisdiction based on the pendency of related appeals in this court.   Further, the court held that Appellants’ jurisdictional arguments misunderstand the relationship between bonds issued pursuant to section 98.2 and jurisdiction. The statute expressly contemplates a situation in which an attempted section 98.2 appeal has failed without there necessarily having been an adjudication on the merits or jurisdiction to hear a section 98.2 appeal, and the court is not only empowered but required to satisfy the relevant ODA from a bond posted under such circumstances. View "Patel v. Chavez" on Justia Law

Several FVF ("the Defendant") employees filed a class action lawsuit against the Defendant alleging, among other things, that the company did not pay minimum and overtime wages. They also alleged a cause of action under the Private Attorney Generals Act ("PAGA") for civil penalties “for themselves and other current and former employees” for “labor law violations.” Defendant sought to compel arbitration based on agreements each of the employees had signed.In response, the employees claimed they did not recognize the purported arbitration agreement or the signatures on them. Moreover, the agreement presented by FVF contained unconscionable provisions. The trial court found that FVF did not prove the employees entered into a valid arbitration agreement.On appeal, the Second Appellate District affirmed, finding that, while employment agreements that compel the waiver of representative claims under the Private Attorney Generals Act are no longer generally contrary to public policy, the agreement in this case was unconscionable. View "Navas v. Fresh Venture Foods, LLC" on Justia Law

Ramirez, a self-employed contractor, was hired by a shopping center’s tenant to remove an exterior sign after the tenant vacated its space. While searching for the sign’s electrical box, he entered a cupola on the shopping center’s roof and fell through an opening built into the cupola’s floor, sustaining serious injuries. In a suit against Kimco, which owns and operates the shopping center, the trial court granted Kimco summary judgment based on the Privette doctrine, which creates “a strong presumption under California law that a hirer of an independent contractor delegates to the contractor all responsibility for workplace safety[,] . . . mean[ing] that a hirer is typically not liable for injuries sustained by an independent contractor or its workers while on the job.”The court of appeal reversed and remanded. Kimco did not hire its tenant or Ramirez to perform the work. Kimco did not delegate its own responsibility for the roof’s condition to Ramirez through an employment relationship, as contemplated by Privette. Nor did Kimco delegate such responsibility by virtue of its landlord-tenant relationship. The court acknowledged “the strong possibility that Kimco will prevail under general principles of premises liability. “ View "Ramirez v. PK I Plaza 580 SC LP" on Justia Law