Martinez v. Combs receives thorough treatment from The California Wage and Hour Law Blog

The California Supreme Court, in Martinez v. Combs (May 20, 2010) (reposted to correct formatting error), addressed a topic that should prove to be of long-lasting significance.  The opinion addresses the weighty question of who is and is not an "employee" under California wage law.

The California Wage Wage and Hour Law Blog, authored by Steven G. Pearl, includes a thorough post discussing this holding, including this important observation:

[T]he Wage Orders set forth a multi-pronged, disjunctive definition of employment: an employer is one who, directly or indirectly, or through an agent or any other person, engages, suffers, or permits any person to work, or exercises control over the wages, hours, or working conditions of any person. Slip op. at 25-26. The “engage, suffer, or permit” component of the definition does not require a common law “master and servant” relationship, but is broad enough to cover “irregular working arrangements the proprietor of a business might otherwise disavow with impunity.” Slip op. at 25. Further, “phrased as it is in the alternative (i.e., wages, hours, or working conditions”), the language of the IWC's 'employer' definition has the obvious utility of reaching situations in which multiple entities control different aspects of the employment relationship, as when one entity, which hires and pays workers, places them with other entities that supervise the work.” Slip op. at 26-27. Finally, the IWC’s “employer” definition is intended to distinguish state law from the federal FLSA.

This is a monumental clarification of the breadth of the definition of employment when wage laws are at issue.  The opinion also provides a mighty boost to the authority of the IWC.

For more, visit the blog or see today's Daily Journal for a revised version of the same article.

In Simpson Strong-Tie Co. Inc. v. Gore, California Supreme Court strengthens protections surrounding attorney speech

The California Supreme Court, in Simpson Strong-Tie Co. Inc. v. Gore (May 17, 2010) explicitly examined the narrow issue of the scope of the commercial speech exemption to the anti-SLAPP statute.  (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 425.16, 425.17, subd. (c).)  Indirectly, the opinion concerns the scope of protection available to attorney communications directed at potential clients, class members or witnesses.  The issue arose when, in February 2006, plaintiff Simpson Strong-Tie Company, Inc. (Simpson) filed an action for defamation and related claims against defendants Pierce Gore and The Gore Law Firm after publication of a newspaper advertisement placed by Gore a few weeks earlier. The advertisement, directed to owners of wood decks constructed after January 1, 2004, advised readers that “you may have certain legal rights and be entitled to monetary compensation, and repair or replacement of your deck” if the deck was built with galvanized screws manufactured by Simpson or other specified entities, and invited those persons to contact Gore “if you would like an attorney to investigate whether you have a potential claim.”

Gore moved successfully in the superior court to have the entire complaint by Simpson stricken under section 425.16, the anti-SLAPP statute, and the Court of Appeal affirmed.  The Supreme Court affirmed as well, though limiting its review exclusively to the applicability of the commercial speech exemption to the anti-SLAPP statute set forth in section 425.17(c)(1).

The ruling offers additional protection to law firms prosecuting class actions.  A defendant will have little recourse against an advertisement that is crafted to satisfy the analysis supplied in this decision.

Update on 2010-05-20 07:35 by The Complex Litigator

Forgive the (corrected) typo in the title.  Some of those slip through.

AT&T's preemption argument based on Stolt-Nielsen is dead before it hits the floor

United States District Court Judge Claudia Wilken (Northern District of California) has already been gifted with the privilege of considering whether Stolt-Nielsen S. A. et al. v. AnimalFeeds International Corp. (discussed on this blog here) preempts any state law that would preclude enforcement of an arbitration agreement.  McArdle v. AT & T Mobility LLC, 2010 WL 1532334 (N.D.Cal. May 10, 2010).  Judge Wilken took care of that argument in one sharp paragraph:

Defendants assert that Stolt-Nielsen creates a substantial question as to whether the “FAA would preempt any holding that California law precludes enforcement of McArdle's agreement to arbitrate his disputes with” them on an individual basis. Mot. for Leave at 4. The Court disagrees. The issue presented in Stolt-Nielsen was “whether imposing class arbitration on parties whose arbitration clauses are ‘silent’ on that issue is consistent with the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA).” 2010 WL 1655826, at *4. The Supreme Court did not address FAA preemption. Nor did it overrule its precedent upon which the Ninth Circuit relied in Shroyer v. New Cingular Wireless Services, Inc., which held that California law on unconscionability could render an arbitration clause unenforceable, 498 F.3d 976, 986-87 (9th Cir.2007).  Stolt-Nielsen is distinguishable both on the facts and the law and, therefore, does not require this Court to reconsider its order on Defendants' motion to stay this action pending their appeal.

Slip op., at 1.  One interesting bit of information is also included in the Order.  The Ninth Circuit recently held that Shroyer continues to control the issue of unconscionability analysis under California law.  Laster v. AT & T Mobility LLC, 584 F.3d 849 (9th Cir.2009). AT&T filed a petition for certiorari in Laster, upon which they expect the Supreme Court to rule by May 24.  If the Supreme Court takes up Laster, they will be forced to explicitly address carve-outs alluded to by the dissent in Stolt-Nielsen but not addressed by the majority opinion.

California Supreme Court activity for the week of May 10, 2010

The California Supreme Court held its (usually) weekly conference today.  Notable results include:

• A Petition for Review and depublication was denied in Jaimez v. DAIOHS USA, Inc., et al., 181 Cal. App. 4th 1286 (February 8, 2010), (detailed analysis of certification standard as applied to various wage & hour claims) discussed on this blog here.  This opinion has already influenced trial courts considering certification motions in the wage & hour context.

I don't see anything else in this week's conference summary that would be of interest here.  If I missed anything after my very quick scan, I will update this post.

Corporate officer can use attorney status to obtain relief from default class action judgment

My condolences to my colleague, Greg Karasik.  After almost two years of attempting to elicit some form of meaningful response from the defendant in Gutierrez v. G & M Oil Company, Mr. Karasik obtained something you don't see every day, a default judgment in a class action.  Sadly, that judgment of about $4 million was set aside by the trial court after it concluded that Michael Gray, Vice President and General Counsel for the defendant, could use his own neglect to set aside the default that he, in his capacity as corporate officer, knew about all along.  The Court of Appeal (Fourth Appellate District, Division Three) in Gutierrez v. G & M Oil Company (May 7, 2010) affirmed the decision.

The Court observed that the issue was one of first impression:

Today we face the related question of whether in-house attorneys come within the mandatory relief from default or dismissal provision of section 473 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The question is, as far as we are aware, one of first impression in California. However, based on what the Supreme Court said in General Dynamics and in PLCM about the role of in-house attorneys, there can be no doubt about the answer: yes.

There is a wrinkle in this case, however, that requires a little more explication. Here, the in-house attorney who negligently allowed a $4 million default judgment to be taken against his company and his employer, a gas station chain, had the title of “Vice President and General Counsel.” Thus, he was a corporate officer as well as being an in-house attorney. Should that make a difference?

Slip op., at 2.  Concluding that the issue was one of statutory construction, the Court found that "there is nothing in section 473 which suggests that in-house attorneys who are also officers of a corporation are somehow exempt from the operation of the mandatory provisions of the statute."  Slip op., at 3.

The opinion examines at some length the operation of section 473 as it pertains to in-house counsel.  I can credit the Court for a well-reasoned and well-written analysis (aside: though I regularly disagree with Division Three, there are some very good writers in that Division of the Fourth Appellate District).  Still, it is a disappointing outcome where an attorney that is also an officer of a company can avoid imputation of knowledge to the company by claiming that he was wearing his attorney hat.

District Court certifies a class of Kelly Services employees alleging unpaid wages

United States District Court Judge Claudia Wilken (Northern District of California) granted plaintiff's motion to certify a class of California-based staffing agency employees that spent time and incurred expenses for interviews with the staffing agency's clients.  Sullivan v. Kelly Services, Inc., 2010 WL 1729174 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 27, 2010).  After prior cross-motions for summary judgment, the Court held that Plaintiff Catherine Sullivan should be compensated for the time she spent in her interviews, but not for her time preparing for and traveling to the interviews or her commuting expenses.  While the Court gives attention to the defendant's arguments, it looks as though this certification was not a close call after the summary judgment rulings.

District Court certifies a class of Penske Logistics delivery drivers and installers

United States District Court Judge Janis Sammartino (Southern District of California) granted plaintiff's motion to certify a class of California-based logistics employees that drove delivery trucks or rode along as installation helpers.  Dilts v. Penske Logsiticcs, LLC (S.D. Cal. Apr. 26, 2010) 2010 WL 1709807.  The analysis was long but not unusual in the wage & hour setting.  The Court offered these comments about its decision to certify the meal period subclass:

The first issue to deal with is the employer's obligation with respect to meal periods under California law. The legal uncertainty about this issue has been a recent source of heartburn for courts. Although it is presently before the California Supreme Court in Brinker Restaurant v. Superior Court, until that decision has issued this Court must proceed as best it can.

As such, the Court finds that California meal break law requires an employer to affirmatively act to make a meal period available where the employee are relieved of all duty. See Cicairos v. Summit Logistics, Inc., 133 Cal.App.4th 949, 35 Cal.Rptr.3d 243, 252-53 (Cal.Ct.App.2006) (“[T]he defendant's obligation to provide the plaintiffs with an adequate meal period is not satisfied by assuming that the meal periods were taken, because employers have ‘an affirmative obligation to ensure that workers are actually relieved of all duty.’ ”); Brown v. Fed. Express Corp., 249 F.R.D. 580, 585 (C.D.Cal.2008) (“It is an employer's obligation to ensure that its employees are free from its control for thirty minutes.”). An illusory meal period, where the employer effectively prevents an employee from having an uninterrupted meal period, does not satisfy this requirement. Cicairos, 35 Cal.Rptr.3d at 252-53; Brown, 249 F.R.D. at 585. However, the employee is not required to use the provided meal period.

Slip op., at 11.