• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
 
1MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION UNDER F.R.C.P RULE 56(d)
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728BARRY VAN SICKLE - BAR NO. 986451079 Sunrise AvenueSuite B-315Roseville, CA 95661Telephone: (916) 549-8784E-Mail: bvansickle@surewest.netAttorney for Plaintiff MARC HEADLEY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTCENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIAMARC HEADLEY
,Plaintiff,vs.
CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGYINTERNATIONAL, a corporateentity, AND DOES 1 - 20
 Defendants.
CASE NO. CV 09-03986 RSWL(MANx)NOTICE OF MOTION ANDMOTION FOR SUMMARYADJUDICATION OF FACTS ANDCONCLUSIONS OF LAWPURSUANT TO F.R.C.P RULE56(d)DATE: August 11, 2009TIME: 9:00 amPLACE: Spring Street Courthouse,Courtroom 21ASSIGNED TO THE HONORABLEJUDGE RONALD S.W. LEW
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Plaintiff Marc Headley will move the court atthe time and place above stated, Courtroom 21, Spring Street Courthouse, 312 N.Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012, at 9:00 am on Tuesday, August 11, 2009 or at such other time and place as the court may order, for summary adjudication in
 
 
2MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION UNDER F.R.C.P RULE 56(d)
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728Plaintiff’s favor with respect to material facts listed below and the conclusions of law that follow from the requested adjudication of facts. Plaintiff Headley seekssummary adjudication of facts upon which there is no genuine dispute asauthorized by Rule 56(d) and a conclusion of law that Defendant Church of Scientology International (“CSI”) is liable to Plaintiff Headley for damages insome amount by reason of the employment relationship that previously existed between the parties and Defendant’s failure to pay minimum wage and overtimecompensation. Plaintiff moves the court for summary adjudication on thefollowing questions of fact or law, and moves the court for an Order finding that:1)
 
Plaintiff was an employee of Defendant Church of Scientology (“CSI”)for purposes of the federal and state labor laws during the time periodPlaintiff worked for Defendant CSI.2)
 
As an employee of Defendant, Plaintiff Headley was entitled to receivethe protections of the labor laws, including compensation at minimumwage and overtime pay.3)
 
Plaintiff Headley is entitled to recover some or all of the difference between what was paid to him by Defendant CSI and what was legallyowed to him under the minimum wage and overtime laws.4)
 
Defendant CSI’s failure to compensate its employee, Plaintiff Headley, inaccordance with prevailing wage and hour laws constitutes an illegal andunfair business practice in violation of California Business andProfessions Code §17200 et. seq.5)
 
Defendant CSI’s failure to pay Plaintiff Headley minimum wage andovertime pay was in violation of state and federal labor laws.The grounds for this action are set forth in a supporting Memorandum andSupporting Declaration of Plaintiff Marc Headley filed concurrently herewith. Insummary, the grounds for this motion are as follows:
 
 
3MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION UNDER F.R.C.P RULE 56(d)
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627281)
 
State and federal labor laws govern the relationship betweenemployees and employers. The labor laws require paymentof minimum wage and overtime to employees. See e.g.,
 Hale v. State of Arizona,
967 F.2d 1356, 1361 (9th Circuit1992) and
 Bureerong v. Uvawas
922 F.Supp. 1450, 1469(C.D. Cal. 1996). These labor laws apply to the facts of thiscase. Defendant failed to pay legal wages to Plaintiff.2)
 
The standard for determining whether or not anemployee/employer relationship existed has been set forth inauthorities as an “economic reality” test. The courtapproved guidelines for assessing “economic reality”include control over wages, hours and working conditions,and economic dependence of the employee upon theemployer.
 Hale
, supra, 967 F.2d at 1364,
 Bureerong 
, supra,at 1468-1470. Plaintiff satisfies the applicable test of employment by Defendant at times herein material.3)
 
Whether an employer/employee relationship existed under the circumstances as between Plaintiff and Defendant in thiscase, and for purposes of the minimum wage and overtimelaws, is a question of law for the court.
 Hale
, supra, 967F.2d at 13604)
 
There is no genuine issue of material fact on sufficient factsto satisfy the prevailing “economic reality” test. Plaintiff was an employee of Defendant as a matter of “economicreality” and law. Under the “economic reality” test, theCourt should find that when Plaintiff worked for Defendantthere was an employee/employer relationship between
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...