Judge: Kevin C. Brazile, Case: 20STCV24883, Date: 2022-10-04 Tentative Ruling

Hearing Date: October 4, 2022

Case Name: Lewis, et al. v. Reptile Factory, LLC, et al.

Case No.: 19STCV34940

Matter: Motion to Vacate Judgment

Moving Party: Plaintiff Maureen Lewis

Responding Party: Defendants Reptile Factory, LLC and Geovanni Solis

Notice: OK

Ruling: The Motion to Vacate Judgment is denied.

Moving party to give notice.

If counsel do not submit on the tentative, they are strongly 

encouraged to appear by LACourtConnect rather than in person due to the COVID-19 pandemic. 

This is an action relating to violations of the Labor Code.  

On August 11, 2022, during a bench trial, the Court granted the motions for judgment per Code Civ. Proc. § 631.8 of Defendants Reptile Factory, LLC and Geovanni Solis.

On August 24, 2022, the Court entered judgment in favor of Defendants.

Plaintiff Maureen Lewis now seeks to vacate the Court’s judgment pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. § 663.  Plaintiff argues that “1) Plaintiff could not be a volunteer or common law spouse since she did not fall under any of the exceptions listed in Labor Code section 3352 for employee status so she was Defendants’ employee, 2) Plaintiff raised an inference of employment with her witnesses’ testimony and her own testimony since Defendants did not keep any records until after this case was filed, 3) there can be no bias or improper motive when requesting wages for work since employee status is not dependent on character (Lab. Code, § 3351), and 4) Plaintiff’s work for other employers outside Defendants’ business hours is not relevant to the employee status question.”

Specifically, Plaintiff contends that, per statute, she could not have been a volunteer because she was not Solis’ spouse or working for a public or nonprofit organization.  Further, she contends that because (a) she presented evidence that she performed services for Defendants and (b) Defendants lack employment records, the burden actually shifted to Defendants to establish the amount worked by Plaintiff.  

Code Civ. Proc. § 663 states in relevant part, “A judgment or decree, when based upon a decision by the court, or the special verdict of a jury, may, upon motion of the party aggrieved, be set aside and vacated by the same court, and another and different judgment entered, for either of the following causes, materially affecting the substantial rights of the party and entitling the party to a different judgment: 1. Incorrect or erroneous legal basis for the decision, not consistent with or not supported by the facts; and in such case when the judgment is set aside, the statement of decision shall be amended and corrected. . . .”

In determining whether there is an employer-employee relationship, “[t]he common and prevailing principle espoused . . . directs us to consider the totality of circumstances that reflect upon the nature of the work relationship of the parties, with emphasis upon the extent to which the defendant controls the plaintiff's performance of employment duties. [Citations.] There is no magic formula for determining whether an organization is a joint employer. Rather, the court must analyze myriad facts surrounding the employment relationship in question. [Citation.] No one factor is decisive. [Citation.] [Citations.] [T]he precise contours of an employment relationship can only be established by a careful factual inquiry.”  (St. Myers v. Dignity Health (2019) 44 Cal.App.5th 301, 311 (internal quotation marks omitted).) 

“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. [Citations.]  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.”  (Id. at pp. 311–12 (internal quotation marks omitted).)

The Court found that Defendants were not Plaintiff’s employer.  Regardless of Plaintiff’s volunteer argument, Defendants could not be liable if Plaintiff never performed any services for Defendants as employers.  Among other things, the Court found credible that Defendants did not control the conditions of Plaintiff’s work; that they did not provide her any work schedule; that various witnesses did not observe Plaintiff at the sites she claimed to be working; and that Plaintiff was excluded from typical work communications.  Moreover, the Court found all of Plaintiff’s testimony unbelievable, spurious, disingenuous, and not credible in all respects regarding the issues and factual basis for establishing an employment relationship or any kind of employer/employee connection between her and Defendants.  Therefore, the Court rejected all of her testimony about an alleged or so-called employment relationship as not believable and not credible in any respects.  In short, the Plaintiff was not a truthful witness whatsoever.  There is no legal or factual error warranting that the judgment be vacated.  

Thus, the Motion to Vacate Judgment is denied.

Moving party to give notice.

If counsel do not submit on the tentative, they are strongly encouraged to appear by LACourtConnect rather than in person due to the COVID-19 pandemic.