Judge: Randall J. Sherman, Case: 2021-01234789, Date: 2022-11-18 Tentative Ruling

Defendants MVP Productions, LLC and Gregory Fielding’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint is overruled as to plaintiff’s 1st‑7th and 9th-10th causes of action, and is sustained without leave to amend as to plaintiff’s 8th cause of action.  Defendants must file an Answer within 14 days.

Defendants contend that plaintiff has not alleged facts that would result in defendant Fielding’s liability as plaintiff’s employer for the Labor Code violations plaintiff allegedly suffered.  Under California law, Fielding may be found liable as plaintiff’s employer if he either (a) exercised control over plaintiff’s wages, hours or working conditions, (b) allowed him to suffer work or permitted him to work, or (c) engaged him, creating a common law employment relationship.  Futrell v. Payday California, Inc. (2010) 190 Cal. App. 4th 1419, 1429.  Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges that Fielding is defendant MVP’s only member and manager who directly oversees and controls MVP’s operations, and exercises significant control over its employees’ terms and conditions of employment.  (Complaint ¶6.)  Plaintiff also alleges that Fielding permitted, authorized, approved and ratified the wrongful acts and practices against plaintiff and the class while overseeing MVP’s operations in California.  (Complaint ¶7.)  Plaintiff further alleges that Fielding had the authority to hire and terminate plaintiff and the other class members, and to set work rules and conditions governing plaintiff and the class.  (Complaint ¶8.)  These allegations are adequate to establish that Fielding may be considered an employer under California law.  Plaintiff does not allege that defendant Fielding is a mere corporate agent of defendant MVP, acting within the scope of his agency, making the case of Martinez v. Combs (2010) 49 Cal. 4th 35, 75, inapplicable here.

Labor Code §558.1 provides that violations of Labor Code §§203, 226, 226.7 and 1194 can result in the liability of not only the employer, but also of any other person acting on behalf of the employer, limited to a natural person who is an owner, director, officer or managing agent of the employer.  Plaintiff’s 1st‑6th causes of action allege violations of the above statutes, creating a second ground for holding Fielding liable on those claims.

Plaintiff’s 8th cause of action is for conversion.  However, the California Supreme Court held in Voris v. Lampert (2019) 7 Cal. 5th 1141, 1145, 1162, that a conversion claim is not an appropriate remedy for the nonpayment of wages.  This ruling’s rationale also applies to an unpaid bonus claim, since it is a claim for a particular amount of money owed in exchange for contractual performance.  Finally, this case does not involve any misappropriated gratuities, making the case of Lu v. Hawaiian Gardens Casino, Inc. (2010) 50 Cal. 4th 592, 603-04, inapplicable.

Defendants are ordered to give notice of the ruling unless notice is waived.