The following is our summary of the Supreme Court’s actions on petitions for review in civil cases from the Court’s conference on Wednesday, January 28, 2015. The summary includes those civil cases in which (1) review has been granted, (2) review has been denied but one or more justices has voted for review, or (3) the Court has ordered depublished an opinion of the Court of Appeal.
Review Granted
Dynamex Operations West v. Superior Court, S222732—Review Granted—January 28, 2015
The question presented is whether in a wage and hour class action involving claims that the plaintiffs were misclassified as independent contractors, a class may be certified based on the Industrial Welfare Commission (IWC) definition of “employee” as construed in Martinez v. Combs (2010) 49 Cal.4th 35, or, in the alternative, whether the court should apply the common law test for distinguishing between employees and independent contractors, discussed in S.G. Borello & Sons, Inc. v. Department of Industrial Relations (1989) 48 Cal.3d 341.
Charles Lee and Pedro Chevez were hired by Dynamex and were initially classified as employees. In 2004, Dynamex changed their classification to independent contractors. Lee and Chevez brought suit against Dynamex with 1,800 other individuals classified as independent contractors. The trial court certified a class and twice denied Dynamex’s motions to decertify the class. Dynamex filed a petition for a writ of mandate, arguing the trial court used an improper definition of “employee.”
The Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Seven, held in a published opinion, Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 718, that the trial court properly classified plaintiffs as employees under Wage Order No. 9-2001. However, the court held that with respect to those claims falling outside Wage Order No. 9-2001, the common law definition of employee controls. The Court of Appeal directed the trial court to reevaluate whether class certification remains appropriate by focusing its analysis “on differences in the defendant’s right to exercise control” rather than on “variation in how the right was exercised.” (Ayala v. Antelope Valley Newspapers, Inc. (2014) 59 Cal.4th 522.)
Review Denied (with dissenting justices)
None.
Depublished
None.
