Judge Lee S. Arian, Case Number: 21STCV12551, Date: 2024-11-14 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 21STCV12551, Date: 2024-11-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV12551 Hearing Date: November 14, 2024 Dept: 27

Hon. Lee S. Arian, Dept 27

MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL

Hearing Date: 11/14/24¿

CASE NO./NAME: 21STCV12551 FRANK PEREZ vs CARPARTS.COM, INC.

Moving Party: Plaintiff

Responding Party: Defendant Carparts.com

Notice: Sufficient¿

Ruling: Denied

Legal Standard

“A motion for new trial is a creature of statute; . . .” (Neal v. Montgomery Elevator Co.¿(1992) 7 Cal. App. 4th 1194, 1198.) A movant must satisfy Code of Civil Procedure sections 657 and 659. Under Code of Civil Procedure section 657, a motion for new trial may be granted if there is any:

1. Irregularity in the proceedings of the court, jury, or adverse party, or any order of the court or abuse of discretion by which either party was prevented from having a fair trial. [¶] 2. Misconduct of the jury; and whenever any one or more of the jurors have been induced to assent to any general or special verdict, or to a finding on any question submitted to them by the court, by a resort to the determination of chance, such misconduct may be proved by the affidavit of any one of the jurors. [¶] 3. Accident or surprise, which ordinary prudence could not have guarded against. [¶] 4. Newly discovered evidence, material for the party making the application, which he could not, with reasonable diligence, have discovered and produced at the trial. [¶] 5. Excessive or inadequate damages. [¶] 6. Insufficiency of the evidence to justify the verdict or other decision, or the verdict or other decision is against law. [¶] 7. Error in law, occurring at the trial and excepted to by the party making the application. (Code Civ. Proc., § 657.)

A new trial motion is available to challenge a summary judgment. (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 858.)

Background

Under Labor Code sections 3600 and 3601 et seq., the exclusive remedy rule holds that workers' compensation is the sole remedy against an employer for an employee’s injury or death arising during the course and scope of employment. “Under the Workers’ Compensation Act, employees are automatically entitled to recover benefits for injuries ‘arising out of and in the course of’ their employment. When the conditions of compensation exist, recovery under the workers’ compensation scheme is the exclusive remedy against an employer for injury or death of an employee” (Piscitelli v. Friedenberg (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 953, 986, internal citations omitted). The primary issue in the MSJ was whether Plaintiff was an employee of Defendant CarParts for the workers' compensation exclusive remedy to apply.

On June 11, 2024, the Court heard Defendant CarParts’ motion for summary judgment and took the matter under submission. On June 20, 2024, the Court ordered the parties to file briefs addressing (1) the applicability of California Labor Code Section 2775 and (2) if applicable, the impact of this section on the case. After reviewing the parties' supplemental briefs, the Court issued a ruling on July 8, 2024, granting Defendant’s motion for summary judgment.

Plaintiff now moves the Court for a new trial, raising two primary arguments. First, Plaintiff contends that the Court incorrectly applied Section 2775 in the joint employer context, relying on Henderson v. Equilon Enterprises, LLC (2019) 40 Cal.App.5th 1211. Second, Plaintiff argues that there is insufficient evidence to support the Court’s conclusion that Plaintiff was an employee of CarParts.

Discussion

Applicability of Labor Code 2775

In Plaintiff’s supplemental briefing on the applicability of Labor Code Section 2775, Plaintiff argued that Section 2775 does not apply in a joint employment context, citing Henderson v. Equilon Enterprises, LLC (2019) 40 Cal.App.5th 1211. Plaintiff maintained that Section 2775, and specifically the ABC test it codifies, should not govern employment status in workers’ compensation cases. Instead, Plaintiff contended that the multi-factor test, historically used in workers' compensation cases and illustrated in Henderson, should apply, asserting that Section 2700 provides a “carve-out” for cases falling under the workers’ compensation provisions of Section 3600 et seq.

The Court considered but ultimately rejected Plaintiff’s argument. The Court clarified that Section 2775 does not exempt workers’ compensation cases from the ABC test. Although the multi-factor test has been used by courts in the past to determine employment relationships, the Court found that it is a judicially created standard, not one explicitly provided for in the statutory framework. In contrast, Section 2775 creates a clear statutory mandate requiring the ABC test to determine employment status under the Labor Code. This encompasses all relevant sections of the Labor Code, including Sections 3600 and 3601 et seq., which set forth the workers' compensation exclusivity rule.

Accordingly, the Court concluded that Section 2775 and the ABC test apply to this case in determining whether Plaintiff was an employee of CarParts. Plaintiff’s current motion essentially reiterates the arguments raised in the supplemental brief, which the Court has already fully considered and rejected.

Contractual Intent

Plaintiff’s argument that emphasizes the contractual agreement between CarParts and nGroup and the parties' intent to establish an independent contractor relationship is unhelpful to the applicability of the ABC test for determining Plaintiff's employment status under the workers’ compensation exclusivity rule. The ABC test, codified in Labor Code section 2775, does not rely on intentions or contractual labels but instead focuses on specific criteria to classify a worker as an independent contractor.

Under the ABC test, Plaintiff must show that he was free from CarParts' control and direction, that he performed work outside CarParts' usual course of business, and that he was customarily engaged in an independently established trade. The argument set forth in the moving papers fails to address these elements. As noted in the Court's order, CarParts' control over Perez’s work is demonstrated by its enforcement of safety standards and the imposition of order-picking quotas, indicating substantial involvement in his day-to-day activities, which supports an employment relationship. Additionally, Perez’s order-picking duties appear central to CarParts' primary business, undermining any argument that his work falls outside its usual operations. Finally, there is no indication that Perez was customarily engaged in an independent trade or business separate from his role with CarParts and nGroup.

Plaintiff's reliance on Patterson v. Domino's Pizza (2014) 60 Cal.4th 474 and Nichols v. Arthur Murray, Inc. (1967) 248 Cal.App.2d 610 is distinguishable and does not apply here. Both cases were decided before the adoption of the ABC test and focus on common law employment principles, which place significant weight on contractual terms and the parties' intent. In Patterson, the court examined a franchise relationship where the franchisor’s lack of control over day-to-day employee operations was critical, whereas here, CarParts exercised significant control over Perez’s work environment and tasks. Nichols similarly evaluated the relationship based on contract terms and intent, an approach that the ABC test specifically bypasses by concentrating on actual work conditions rather than on the parties' descriptions.

Thus, the motion is Denied.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:

If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the court at sscdept27@lacourt.org with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number. The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting.

Unless all parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument. You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue.

If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without leave.