Bowerman v. Field Asset Services, Inc.
242 F. Supp. 3d 910
N.D. Cal.2017Background
- Field Asset Services (FAS) contracts with independent "vendors" to perform property‑preservation work in California; vendors sign Vendor Qualification Packets (VQPs), use FAS’s FAStrack software, accept work orders, follow detailed job specs, submit photo documentation, and are subject to scorecards and discipline.
- Plaintiffs sued for misclassification, unpaid overtime, unreimbursed business expenses, and related claims; a class was certified limited to vendor‑owners who personally performed property preservation work in California and worked for FAS at least 70% of the time.
- After discovery, FAS moved to decertify the class and for summary judgment as to three vendor claimants; plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment that vendors are employees and that FAS is liable for overtime and expenses.
- The court focused on the California common‑law (Borello/Ayala) multi‑factor test, with the hirer’s right to control the manner and means of work as the principal factor; secondary factors (business distinctness, skill, tools, duration, method of payment, integration, parties’ intent, profit/loss) were also considered.
- The court denied decertification, granted plaintiffs’ partial summary judgment on misclassification (vendors are employees as a matter of law) and on FAS’s liability for unpaid overtime and unreimbursed expenses, granted FAS’s summary judgment as to Julia Magdaleno (not a class member), and denied FAS’s summary judgment as to Matthew Cohick and Eric Ackel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether class should be decertified | Class members are sufficiently similar (same VQPs, uniform right of control); common proof predominates and manageability concerns are overstated | Post‑discovery variation among vendors (business form, operations, records) defeats commonality, predominance, and manageability | Denied — Rule 23 requirements remain satisfied; common issues (right to control) predominate and class treatment is superior |
| Whether vendors are employees or independent contractors (liability phase) | VQPs, mandatory training, work orders, inspections, scorecards, discipline, termination rights show FAS’s right to control — vendors are employees as a matter of law | Actual practice varied; many vendors ran distinct businesses, hired crews, negotiated rates; factual issues favor jury | Granted to plaintiffs — right to control is overwhelming; vendors are employees as a matter of law; secondary factors do not overcome control factor |
| Whether FAS is liable classwide for unpaid overtime and unreimbursed business expenses | If vendors are employees, FAS admits it did not pay overtime or reimburse expenses — liability is common; damages are individualized later | Determination of liability and reimbursement requires individualized inquiries about necessity, notice, and extent of expenses | Granted on liability — factual disputes about amounts and specific expense items reserved for damages/claims phase |
| Summary judgment for three named/absent members (Magdaleno, Cohick, Ackel) | Plaintiffs: Magdaleno is a vendor‑owner and class member; Cohick and Ackel are class members/employees | FAS: Magdaleno never executed VQP or was designated as vendor; Cohick and Ackel ran large, independent businesses so are independent contractors | Magdaleno: SJ for FAS (not in class). Cohick and Ackel: SJ denied (facts do not show independent contractor status as a matter of law) |
Key Cases Cited
- S.G. Borello & Sons v. Dep’t of Indus. Relations, 48 Cal.3d 341 (Cal. 1989) (establishes multi‑factor common‑law test for employee vs. independent contractor with right to control as principal factor)
- Ayala v. Antelope Valley Newspapers, Inc., 59 Cal.4th 522 (Cal. 2014) (emphasizes hirer’s right to control manner and means is decisive)
- Narayan v. EGL, Inc., 616 F.3d 895 (9th Cir. 2010) (once services provided, worker makes prima facie showing of employee status; burden shifts to employer)
- Ruiz v. Affinity Logistics Corp., 754 F.3d 1093 (9th Cir. 2014) (recent driver cases: pervasive control can make classification a legal question)
- Alexander v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc., 765 F.3d 981 (9th Cir. 2014) (controls in standard agreements and operational rules support employee status)
- Briseno v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., 844 F.3d 1121 (9th Cir. 2016) (manageability concerns alone should not defeat class certification)