Motion For Summary Adjudication

1 2 3

BARRY VAN SICKLE - BAR NO. 98645 1079 Sunrise Avenue Suite B-315 Roseville, CA 95661 Telephone: (916) 549-8784 E-Mail: [email protected]

4 5

Attorney for Plaintiff MARC HEADLEY

6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARC HEADLEY, CASE NO. CV 09-03986 RSWL (MANx) 12 Plaintiff, 13 vs. 14 15 16

CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL, a corporate entity, AND DOES 1 - 20

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW PURSUANT TO F.R.C.P RULE 56(d)

17 Defendants. 18 19 20

DATE: August 11, 2009 TIME: 9:00 am PLACE: Spring Street Courthouse, Courtroom 21

21 22

ASSIGNED TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE RONALD S.W. LEW

23 24 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Plaintiff Marc Headley will move the court at 25 the time and place above stated, Courtroom 21, Spring Street Courthouse, 312 N. 26 Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012, at 9:00 am on Tuesday, August 11, 2009 or 27 at such other time and place as the court may order, for summary adjudication in 28 1 MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION UNDER F.R.C.P RULE 56(d)

1

Plaintiff’s favor with respect to material facts listed below and the conclusions of

2

law that follow from the requested adjudication of facts. Plaintiff Headley seeks

3

summary adjudication of facts upon which there is no genuine dispute as

4

authorized by Rule 56(d) and a conclusion of law that Defendant Church of

5

Scientology International (“CSI”) is liable to Plaintiff Headley for damages in

6

some amount by reason of the employment relationship that previously existed

7

between the parties and Defendant’s failure to pay minimum wage and overtime

8

compensation. Plaintiff moves the court for summary adjudication on the

9

following questions of fact or law, and moves the court for an Order finding that:

10

1) Plaintiff was an employee of Defendant Church of Scientology (“CSI”)

11

for purposes of the federal and state labor laws during the time period

12

Plaintiff worked for Defendant CSI.

13

2) As an employee of Defendant, Plaintiff Headley was entitled to receive

14

the protections of the labor laws, including compensation at minimum

15

wage and overtime pay.

16

3) Plaintiff Headley is entitled to recover some or all of the difference

17

between what was paid to him by Defendant CSI and what was legally

18

owed to him under the minimum wage and overtime laws.

19

4) Defendant CSI’s failure to compensate its employee, Plaintiff Headley, in

20

accordance with prevailing wage and hour laws constitutes an illegal and

21

unfair business practice in violation of California Business and

22

Professions Code §17200 et. seq.

23 24 25

5) Defendant CSI’s failure to pay Plaintiff Headley minimum wage and overtime pay was in violation of state and federal labor laws. The grounds for this action are set forth in a supporting Memorandum and

26

Supporting Declaration of Plaintiff Marc Headley filed concurrently herewith. In

27

summary, the grounds for this motion are as follows:

28 2 MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION UNDER F.R.C.P RULE 56(d)

1

1) State and federal labor laws govern the relationship between

2

employees and employers. The labor laws require payment

3

of minimum wage and overtime to employees. See e.g.,

4

Hale v. State of Arizona, 967 F.2d 1356, 1361 (9th Circuit

5

1992) and Bureerong v. Uvawas 922 F.Supp. 1450, 1469

6

(C.D. Cal. 1996). These labor laws apply to the facts of this

7

case. Defendant failed to pay legal wages to Plaintiff.

8 9

2) The standard for determining whether or not an employee/employer relationship existed has been set forth in

10

authorities as an “economic reality” test. The court

11

approved guidelines for assessing “economic reality”

12

include control over wages, hours and working conditions,

13

and economic dependence of the employee upon the

14

employer. Hale, supra, 967 F.2d at 1364, Bureerong, supra,

15

at 1468-1470. Plaintiff satisfies the applicable test of

16

employment by Defendant at times herein material.

17

3) Whether an employer/employee relationship existed under

18

the circumstances as between Plaintiff and Defendant in this

19

case, and for purposes of the minimum wage and overtime

20

laws, is a question of law for the court. Hale, supra, 967

21

F.2d at 1360

22

4) There is no genuine issue of material fact on sufficient facts

23

to satisfy the prevailing “economic reality” test. Plaintiff

24

was an employee of Defendant as a matter of “economic

25

reality” and law. Under the “economic reality” test, the

26

Court should find that when Plaintiff worked for Defendant

27

there was an employee/employer relationship between

28 3 MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION UNDER F.R.C.P RULE 56(d)

1

Plaintiff Headley and Defendant CSI as a matter of law,

2

which required Defendant to pay Plaintiff at minimum wage

3

and overtime rates during the time period Plaintiff provided

4

services and labor to Defendant. F.R.C.P. Rule 56(d) and

5

Scott v. Harris 550 U.S. 372, 380, 127 S.Ct. 1769, 167 L.Ed.

6

2d 686, 694 (2007)

7

5) As an employee, Plaintiff was absolutely entitled to

8

compensation at lawful rates, which he did not receive. The

9

right to legal pay cannot be lost by waiver, contract,

10

disclaimer or otherwise. Therefore, there can be no genuine

11

material dispute, as a matter of law, on any purported or

12

alleged loss of labor law protection by Plaintiff Headley.

13

Bureerong, supra, 922 F.Supp. 1450 at 1469 (citing

14

California Labor Code §§1194, 1197 & 1198), Tony and

15

Susan Alamo Foundation v. Secretary of Labor 471 U.S.

16

290, 297, 105 S.Ct. 1953, 85 L.Ed.2d 278 (1985) and

17

Barrentine v. Arkansas-Best Freight System, Inc., 450 U.S.

18

728, 737, 101 S.Ct. 1437, 67 L.Ed.2d 641, 653 (1981).

19

6) An employee may recover the difference between what was

20

paid and what was legally owed under the minimum wage

21

and overtime laws. This claim may be brought under wage

22

laws and/or in an action for illegal or unfair business

23

practices under California state law. Cortez v. Purolator Air

24

Filtration Products Co., 23 Cal.4th 163, 173-5 (2000).

25

Accordingly, Defendant CSI owes Plaintiff Headley

26

additional compensation in an amount to be determined

27

according to proof.

28 4 MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION UNDER F.R.C.P RULE 56(d)

1 2

This motion is supported by a legal Memorandum and a Declaration of Plaintiff Marc Headley filed concurrently herewith.

3

Counsel have met and conferred concerning this motion in compliance with

4

Local Rule 7.3. Defendant refused to stipulate that Plaintiff Headley had been an

5

employee of Defendant CSI and was due any additional compensation, although

6

Plaintiff worked for Defendant CSI as a full-time employee, and was compensated

7

at less than minimum wage, for approximately fifteen years.

8

July 7, 2009

9 10 11

BARRY VAN SICKLE Attorney for Plaintiff MARC HEADLEY

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5 MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION UNDER F.R.C.P RULE 56(d)