Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
7Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Motion for Summary Adjudication - Memorandum

Motion for Summary Adjudication - Memorandum

Ratings: (0)|Views: 4,542|Likes:
Published by blownforgood
This is the memorandum in support of the Motion for Summary Adjudication in my case that I was an employee of CSI and entitled to all rights and laws that apply to en employee.

Up until now, CSI has stated that I was simply a volunteer and did not in fact work for them for the 15 years that I was at the Int Base. Once we establish that I was an employee under law, this case will be much more focused on what needs to be sorted out in regards to them running slave labor camps and taking advantage of people and not paying out legal wages.
This is the memorandum in support of the Motion for Summary Adjudication in my case that I was an employee of CSI and entitled to all rights and laws that apply to en employee.

Up until now, CSI has stated that I was simply a volunteer and did not in fact work for them for the 15 years that I was at the Int Base. Once we establish that I was an employee under law, this case will be much more focused on what needs to be sorted out in regards to them running slave labor camps and taking advantage of people and not paying out legal wages.

More info:

Published by: blownforgood on Jul 09, 2009
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

01/15/2013

pdf

text

original

 
 
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
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)MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OFPLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OFFACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OFLAW PURSUANT TO F.R.C.PRULE 56(d) RE ISSUES OF:1)
 
EMPLOYMENT STATUS;2)
 
COVERAGE OF WAGE LAW;3)
 
LIABILITY FOR ADDITIONALCOMPENSATIONDATE: August 11, 2009TIME: 9:00 amPLACE: Spring Street Courthouse,Courtroom 21ASSIGNED TO THE HONORABLEJUDGE RONALD S.W. LEW
 
 
iMEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
TABLE OF CONTENTSI.
 
SYNOPSIS
........................................................................................................1
II.
 
POINTS AND AUTHORITIES: INTRODUCTION
................................2
III. EMPLOYEE IS BROADLY DEFINED FOR PURPOSES OF THELABOR LAW
...................................................................................................4
IV. PLAINTIFF WAS AN EMPLOYEE AS A MATTER OF ECONOMICREALITY
.........................................................................................................5
V. THE PROTECTION OF THE LABOR LAWS IS NOT WAIVABLE
.8
VI. LABOR LAWS CANNOT BE IGNORED IN THE NAME OFRELIGION
.....................................................................................................10
VII. CALIFORNIA LABOR LAWS ALSO APPLY TO PLAINTIFF
.........14
VIII. THE DECLARATION OF MARC HEADLEY SATISFIES THEECONOMIC REALITY TEST
...................................................................16
IX. CONCLUSION
..............................................................................................19
 
 
iiMEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
TABLE OF AUTHORITIESCASES
 
 Anderson v. Mt Clemens Pottery Co.
 328 U.S. 680.....................................................................................................3
 Barrentine v. Arkansas-Best Freight System, Inc.,
 450 U.S. 728, 101 S.Ct. 1437, 67 L.Ed.2d 641 (1981)........................8, 9, 11
 Bartels v. Birmingham
,332 U.S. 126, 67 S.Ct. 1547, 91 L.Ed. 1947 (1947).......................5, 6, 8, 13
 Bonnette v. California Health and Welfare Agency
 704 F.2d 1465, 1469 (9
th
Cir. 1982)................................................................2
 Brennan v. Partida
,492 F.2d 707, 710 (5th Cir. 1974).............................................................3, 14
 Broberg v. The Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America
 171 Cal. App.4
th
912 (2009)............................................................................4
 Bureerong v. Uvawas
 922 F.Supp. 1450, 1463 (C.D. Cal. 1996).....................................4, 8, 14, 16
Cortez v. Purolator Air Filtration Products Co.
 23 Cal.4th 163, 173-5 (2000).................................................................3, 4, 16
 Dunlop v. Carriage Carpet Co
.,548 F.2d 139, 144 (6th Cir. 1977)...................................................................6
 Elvig v. Calvin Presbyterian Church
 397 F.3d 790, 792 (9
th
Cir. 2005)............................................................11, 12
 Estrada v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc.
 154 Cal.App.4th 1, 10 (2007)........................................................................15
Goldberg v. Whitaker House Cooperative
,366 U.S. 28, 33, 81 S.Ct. 933, 6 L.Ed.2d 100 (1961) (FLSA)..................2, 7
 Hale v. State of Arizona
,67 F.2d 1356, 1360 (9th Circuit 1992)..................................................passim

Activity (7)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 hundred reads
1 thousand reads
packagingwiz liked this
packagingwiz liked this
bgkelley liked this
bgkelley liked this
sarmicmil liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->