Judge: Gregory Keosian, Case: 22STCV26262, Date: 2024-01-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV26262    Hearing Date: January 2, 2024    Dept: 61

Defendant Harmony Congregate Living, Inc.’s Motion for Sanctions against Plaintiff Madeline Arroyo and her Counsel is DENIED.

I.      MOTION FOR SANCTIONS PURSUANT TO SECTION 128.7

(b) By presenting to the court, whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating, a pleading, petition, written notice of motion, or other similar paper, an attorney or unrepresented party is certifying that to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances, all of the following conditions are met:

(1) It is not being presented primarily for an improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation.

(2) The claims, defenses, and other legal contentions therein are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law or the establishment of new law.

(3) The allegations and other factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, are likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery.

(4) The denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on a lack of information or belief.

(Code Civ. Proc., § 128.7, subd. (b).)

Defendant Harmony Congregate Living, Inc. (Harmony) moves for sanctions under the above statute against Plaintiff Madeline Arroyo (Plaintiff) amounting to $17,575.00 in attorney fees and dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims against Harmony. The basis for Harmony’s motion is that, although Plaintiff has alleged she was jointly employed by Harmony and Defendant Prescott Sanchez, Inc., in deposition she admitted that she was employed solely by Prescott Sanchez and that Harmony was Prescott’s client, not her employer. (Motion at pp. 1–2.)

“Joint employment occurs when two or more persons engage the services of an employee in an enterprise in which the employee is subject to the control of both.” (Morales v. 22nd Dist. Agricultural Assn. (2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 504, 543.)

Factors to be taken into account in assessing the relationship of the parties include payment of salary or other employment benefits and Social Security taxes, the ownership of the equipment necessary to performance of the job, the location where the work is performed, the obligation of the defendant to train the employee, the authority of the defendant to hire, transfer, promote, discipline or discharge the employee, the authority to establish work schedules and assignments, the defendant's discretion to determine the amount of compensation earned by the employee, the skill required of the work performed and the extent to which it is done under the direction of a supervisor, whether the work is part of the defendant's regular business operations, the skill required in the particular occupation, the duration of the relationship of the parties, and the duration of the plaintiff's employment. Generally, the individual factors cannot be applied mechanically as separate tests; they are intertwined and their weight depends often on particular combinations. The most important factor is “the defendant's right to control the means and manner of the workers’ performance.

(St. Myers v. Dignity Health (2019) 44 Cal.App.5th 301, 311–312.)

Defendant’s motion is unpersuasive. First, the deposition testimony upon which Defendant relies, in which Plaintiff states that she does not believe she was employed by Defendant Harmony, and was rather employed by Prescott Sanchez, is not included among the evidence that they provide. Rather, the deposition testimony they include speaks to Plaintiff’s belief that Defendant Harmony terminated her. (Motion Exh. A at p. 37.) The power to hire and fire is one factor evidencing joint employer status, as is the performance of work at facilities belonging to Defendant, which Defendant acknowledges took place here. (Motion at p. 1.) Defendant’s presentation of the policies and handbooks of Defendant Prescott Sanchez do not establish that Plaintiff’s claims are without reasonable basis, as such policies are but one of the factors to be considered in the above analysis. The same is true about Plaintiff’s subjective beliefs regarding the existence of an employment relationship. (See Taylor v. Financial Casualty & Surety, Inc. (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 966, 994.)

The motion for sanctions is DENIED.