• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • 1
    CommentGo Back
Download
 
 
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
of 00

Leave a Comment

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

There's a new appeals court decision that you should see which will have implications on your labor case. See: Labor Case Decision

reply03 / 18 / 2010
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...