Free Response in Opposition to Motion - District Court of California - California

Case 3:08-cv-00033-L-AJB

Document 48-2

Filed 06/30/2008

Page 1 of 5

1 EMGE & ASSOCIATES 550 West C Street, Ste. 1600 2 SanDiego,CA 92101 (6 Telephone 19) 595-1 400 3 Facsimile(619)595-1480 IssaJ. Michael(CSB No. 184256) THE MICHAEL LAW FIRM 1648Union St #201 SanFrancisco, CA 94123 (415) 447-2833 Telephone Facsimile(415) 447-283 4
B 9 10 11 L2 13

Attomeys for Plaintiffs, JOSUE SOTO, GHAZI RASHID, MOHAMED ABDELFATTAH, On Behalf of All Aggrieved Employees, OthersSimilarly Situated,and the GeneralPublic All

IN THE UNITED STATESDISTRICT COURT SOUTHERNDISTRICTOF CALIFORNIA

JOSUE SOTO,GHAZI RASHID,MOHAMED ) CaseNo. 08-CV-0033L (AJB) ABDELFATTAH,On Behalfof All Aggrieved) All Employees, Others SimilarlySituated, and ) CLASS ACTION 15
I4

the GeneralPublic,

16

Plaintiffs,
I7
l-u

I9 20 2L 22 23 24

DIAKON LOGISTICS (DELAWARE), INC., A foreigncorp.; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants.

DECLARATION OF DEREK J. EMGE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT DIAKON LOGISTICS (DELAWARE) INC.'S MOTION TO DISMISS

(DELAWARE)INC., DIAKON LOGISTICS Plaintif, f Third-Party
VS,

INC., SAYBE'S,LLC, ABDUL TRUCKING, RASHID TRUCKING,INC., And 25 third-PartvDefendants.
zo

27
z6

-0
DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO D E FE N D A N TS 'MOTIO N TO D IS MIS S 08cv0033 L (AJB)

Case 3:08-cv-00033-L-AJB

Document 48-2

Filed 06/30/2008

Page 2 of 5

1
z

I, Derek J. Emge, declare: 1. I am an attorney at law duly admitted to practice before the United StatesDistrict

3 4 5
o

Court, Southern District of Califomia and one of the attorneysof record herein for Plaintiffs JOSUE SOTO, GHAZI RASHID and MOHAMED ABDELFATTAH in District Court Case Number 08-CV-0033 L (AJB). The following facts are known to me of my own personal

knowledgeand circumstances the aboveentitledmatter as they relate to this declaration, in and if calledupon, I could and would testify competently thereto. 2. Attached hereto as Exhibit "A" is a true and correct copy of The 2002 Update of

7 8

the DLSE EnforcementPoliciesand lnterpretations Manual (Revised),528.2"Burden of Proof."
10 11 1,2 13

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoingis true and correct. Executedthis 30th day of June2008 at SanDiego, Califomia.

/S/DerekEmge
I4

Derek J. Emge
15 I6 I7 1B I9 20 2I
zz

23 24 25
zo
zt

-1
DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO D E FE N D A N TS 'MOTION TO D IS MIS S 08cv0033 L (AJB)

28

Case 3:08-cv-00033-L-AJB

Document 48-2

Filed 06/30/2008

Page 3 of 5

EXHIBIT A

Case 3:08-cv-00033-L-AJB

Document 48-2

Filed 06/30/2008

Page 4 of 5

The 2002UpdateOf
The DLSE EnforcementPoliciesand Interpretations Manual (Revised)
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
(DLSE) Enforcement The Divisionof LaborStandards Enforcement Policies and Interpretations Manualsummarizes policies the and interpretations which DLSE has followedandcontinues follow in discharging dutyto administer enforce to its and the laborstatutes regulations the State California. and of of We would like to thankthe followingDLSE management, deputies, attorneys clerical and staffmembers editing,cite checking otherwise for and contributing the Manual: to Robert Jones, Acting State LaborCommissioner Almaraz Guadalupe LeslieClements JohnFennacy Linda Gelsinger DaveGurley Tim Kolesnikow AnneRosenzweig Michael Villeneauve David Balter Dan Cornet RachelFolberg CharGrafil Johanna Hsu Teresa McDonald Brenda Schrader Benjamin Chang Dovi Susan Mary Ann Galapon Tom Grogan MichaelJackman Allen Perlof NanceSteffen JohnChiolero FredDuscha EdnaGarcia-Earley RandiGuerrero Tom Kerrigan WilliamReich RobertVillalovos

Marcho 2006

Case 3:08-cv-00033-L-AJB

Document 48-2

Filed 06/30/2008

Page 5 of 5

DIYISION

OF IIIBOR

STANDARDS

ENFORCEMENT

BNF' ORC EMENT POLICIE S AND INTE RPRE TATIONS MANUAL
28 28 .1
INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR vs. EMPLOYEE.

Labor Code S 2750,Conttact Of Employment: "The contractof employmentis a contract by which one, who is calledthe employer,engages another,who is called the employee, do somethingfor the benefit of the employeror a third person," to
Burden Of Proof. The party seeking to avoid liability has the burden of proving that D e rs o n s w h o s e s e rv i c e s he has retai ned are i ndeoendent contractors tather t han e mp l o y e e s . In o th e r w o rds, there i s a presumpti on of empl oyment. (Labor Code (1989) 48C al .3d341at pp. $ 3 3 5 7 ;.f.C .Bo re l l o b .fo n s,Inc.u.D ept.aJ' Industri al R el ati ans

349,354.) 28.3 28.3
Borello Test. In determiningwhether an individual providing service to another is an indepen dent contracto r or an emp loyee, there is no single determinative fa c to r. R a th e r, i ti s n e c e ssaryto cl osel y exami ne the facts of each servi ce rel ati onship a n d to th e n a p p l y th e " mul ti -factor" or " economi c real i ti es" test adopted b y t he California Supreme Court in Borell0, supra,48 Cal.3d 341 . 28.3.1 The Test Prior To B o re//0. Prior to Bore//0, leadrng case on this subiect was T'ieberg the u. UnenplEntentlnsurance Appatls Bd (1970)2 Cal.3d 943, which held that "the principle te s t o f a n e mp l o y me n t re l ati onshi p i s w hcther the person to w hom servi ce i s render ed h a s th e ri g h t to c o n tro l the manner and means of accompi i shi ng the resul t desir ed. " U n d e r th i s te s t," i f th e e m pl oyer has the autho ri ty to exerci secompl ete control , w h et her o r n o t th a t ri g h t i s e xerci sed w i th respect to al l detai l s, an empl oyer-emp loyee relationship exiss." Enpire .flar Mines Co. u. Ca/. Erup. Con. (1,946)28 Cal.2d 33,43. 28.3.2 Control As A Factot. Borel/obrought about a sharp departure from this overriding fo c u s o n c o n tro l o v e r w o rk detai l s.The srow ers w ho w ere found to be empl oyer s by the Bore//acourt did not have the contractual authority to exetcise supervision over w o rk d e ta i l s , y e t th e c o u rt rul ed that thcy retai ned " al l necessarycontrol " over t heif o p e ra ti o n s . T h e s i m p l i c i ty of the w ork, or the cxi stence of a pi ece-ratebased paym ent s y s te m, m a y m a k e i t u n n ecessary for an empl oyer to assert di rect control over wor k d e ta i l s a n d th e e mp l o y e r may retai n " al l necessarycontrol " byi ndi rect means. 28.3.2.1 "'f he 'control' test, applied rigidly and in isolation, is often of litde use in evaluating the i n fi n i te v a ri e ty o f s e rv i c e affangements." (B orel l o,48C al .3d at p.350) W hi l e the r ight to control the work remains a significantfactor, &te Bore//o court identified the following a d d i ti o n a l fa c to rs th a t must be consi dered:
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. \Xðer the person performingservices is engaged in an occupation or businessdistinct from that of the principal; Whether or not the work is apart of the regular business of the principal; \X/hether the principal or the worker supplies the instrumentalities, tools, and the place for the person doing the work; The aileged employee's investment in the equiplrent or materials required by his task; The skill required in the particular occupation; The kind of occupation, widr referencc to whether,in the localiry, the work is usually done under the direction of the principal or by a specialistwithout supervision; The alleged employee's opportuniry for profit or loss depending on his managerial skill;

Multi-Factor

2002 JutrtE.

28-1