Judge Michael Small, Case Number: 21STCV05934, Date: 2023-05-10 Tentative Ruling

Inform the clerk if you submit on the tentative ruling. If moving and opposing parties submit, no appearance is necessary.

The Court's tentative ruling is to grant the motion for summary judgment of Defendant T-Mobile USA, Inc. ("T Mobile") on the causes of action that Plaintiff Marisa Canengeuz has asserted against T-Mobile. Each cause of action depends on T-Mobile having been Canenguez's employer or her joint employer along with co-Defendant Ritmo Latino Wireles, LLC ("Ritmo"). There is no disputed issue of material fact that would allow a jury to conclude that T-Mobile was Canengeuz's employer or joint employer under any of the tests set forth in California precedent for determining the existence of an employer-employee relationship .

The evidence that T-Mobile submitted in support of its motion demonstrates that Ritmo was Canenguez's employer, and that T-Mobile was not her employer or joint employer. Canenguez's evidentiary objections to T-Mobile's reliance in support of its motion on the declaration of Adam Krupa and the Retail Service Agreement ("the RSA") between T-Mobile and Ritmo are overruled. Krupa has sufficient personal knowledge to back up the statements in his declaration. And the RSA is admissible under the business record exception to the hearsay rule. (Evidence Code Section 1271.)

The evidence that T-Mobile submitted in support of the motion shifted the burden to Caninguez to show in her opposition the presence of disputed issues of material fact on whether T-Mobile was her employer or joint employer. She failed to carry that burden. The evidence Canenguez submitted does not create a disputed issue of material fact. Part of that evidence is inadmissible hearsay. Other parts are statements of Canenguez that flatly contradict her sworn deposition testimony and thus cannot generate disputed issues of material fact. And still other parts are simply irrelevant to the question of whether there was an employer-employee relationship between Canengeuz and T-Mobile.

At the hearing on T-Mobile's motion, the Court will canvass the evidence on both sides and explain the basis for the tentative ruling that there is no disputed issue of material fact that warrants denial of the motion and allowing Canenguez's causes of action against T-Mobile to proceed to trial. The Court also will subsequently issue a more detailed ruling on the motion.