motion for summary adjudication

8/14/2019 Motion for Summary Adjudication

1/5

1

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

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

910

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

BARRY VAN SICKLE - BAR NO. 986451079 Sunrise AvenueSuite B-315Roseville, CA 95661Telephone: (916) 549-8784E-Mail: [email protected]

Attorney for PlaintiffMARC HEADLEY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARC HEADLEY,

Plaintiff,

vs.

CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY

INTERNATIONAL, a corporate

entity, AND DOES 1 - 20

Defendants.

CASE NO. CV 09-03986 RSWL

(MANx)

NOTICE OF MOTION AND

MOTION FOR SUMMARY

ADJUDICATION OF FACTS AND

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

PURSUANT TO F.R.C.P RULE

56(d)

DATE: August 11, 2009

TIME: 9:00 am

PLACE: Spring Street Courthouse,

Courtroom 21

ASSIGNED TO THE HONORABLE

JUDGE RONALD S.W. LEW

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Plaintiff Marc Headley will move the court at

the 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
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]


2/5

2


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

910

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Plaintiffs favor with respect to material facts listed below and the conclusions of

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

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

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

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

some amount by reason of the employment relationship that previously existed

between the parties and Defendants failure to pay minimum wage and overtime

compensation. Plaintiff moves the court for summary adjudication on the

following 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 period

Plaintiff worked for Defendant CSI.

2) As an employee of Defendant, Plaintiff Headley was entitled to receivethe protections of the labor laws, including compensation at minimum

wage and overtime pay.

3) Plaintiff Headley is entitled to recover some or all of the differencebetween what was paid to him by Defendant CSI and what was legally

owed to him under the minimum wage and overtime laws.

4) Defendant CSIs failure to compensate its employee, Plaintiff Headley, inaccordance with prevailing wage and hour laws constitutes an illegal and

unfair business practice in violation of California Business and

Professions Code 17200 et. seq.

5) Defendant CSIs 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 and

Supporting Declaration of Plaintiff Marc Headley filed concurrently herewith. In

summary, the grounds for this motion are as follows:


3/5

3


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

910

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1) State and federal labor laws govern the relationship betweenemployees and employers. The labor laws require payment

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

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

1992) andBureerong v. Uvawas 922 F.Supp. 1450, 1469

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

case. 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 court

approved guidelines for assessing economic reality

include control over wages, hours and working conditions,

and economic dependence of the employee upon the

employer. 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 underthe circumstances as between Plaintiff and Defendant in this

case, and for purposes of the minimum wage and overtime

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

F.2d at 1360

4) 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 economic

reality and law. Under the economic reality test, the

Court should find that when Plaintiff worked for Defendant

there was an employee/employer relationship between


4/5

4


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

910

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Plaintiff Headley and Defendant CSI as a matter of law,

which required Defendant to pay Plaintiff at minimum wage

and overtime rates during the time period Plaintiff provided

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

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

2d 686, 694 (2007)

5) As an employee, Plaintiff was absolutely entitled tocompensation at lawful rates, which he did not receive. The

right to legal pay cannot be lost by waiver, contract,disclaimer or otherwise. Therefore, there can be no genuine

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

alleged loss of labor law protection by Plaintiff Headley.

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

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

Susan Alamo Foundation v. Secretary of Labor471 U.S.

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

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

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

6) An employee may recover the difference between what waspaid and what was legally owed under the minimum wage

and overtime laws. This claim may be brought under wage

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

practices under California state law. Cortez v. Purolator Air

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

Accordingly, Defendant CSI owes Plaintiff Headley

additional compensation in an amount to be determined

according to proof.


5/5

5


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

910

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

This motion is supported by a legal Memorandum and a Declaration of

Plaintiff Marc Headley filed concurrently herewith.

Counsel have met and conferred concerning this motion in compliance with

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

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

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

at less than minimum wage, for approximately fifteen years.

July 7, 2009

BARRY VAN SICKLE

Attorney for Plaintiff

MARC HEADLEY

motion for summary adjudication

Documents