Futrell v. Payday California, Inc.
190 Cal. App. 4th 1419
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2010Background
- Futrell, a crowd/traffic control worker, sues Reactor Films and Payday California for unpaid wages under Labor Code sections 510, 1194 and related FLSA claims.
- Reactor outsourced payroll to Payday, which processed payroll for many production companies and sometimes issued payroll documents labeling Payday as employer of record.
- Futrell alleges Payday and Reactor were joint employers and that Payday paid wages improperly on several productions (Old Spice, JCPenney, Pizza Hut).
- Payday moved for summary adjudication (SAI) arguing it was not Futrell’s employer; the trial court granted SAI, applying Borello-based test without Martinez guidance.
- Martinez v. Combs (2010) refined California wage-law employment definitions and held wage orders control the employment relationship and do not incorporate the federal employment definition; this governs the appellate review of the SAI ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Payday was Futrell’s employer under California wage statutes | Futrell argues Payday is the employer via documents and industry practice | Payday contends it did not hire/fire, supervise, or set wages; not the employer | No; Martinez framework shows Payday was not Futrell's employer under wage orders and common law. |
| Whether Payday is an employer under the FLSA | Futrell asserts joint-employer status under economic reality | Payday lacked control over wages/hours; not an employer under FLSA | No; economic reality factors show Payday did not control wages or supervision. |
| Estoppel as a bar to Payday’s denial of employer status | Futrell asserts estoppel based on Payday representations | Payday’s representations do not meet estoppel elements | Rejected; no detrimental reliance shown. |
| Whether the trial court erred in weighing or credibility determinations in SAI | Futrell claims improper weighing of payroll documents | Court did not weigh credibility; documents not sufficient to create triable issue | Correct; label of employer is insufficient where conduct shows otherwise. |
| Discovery arguments and continuances for SAI | Third continuance denied; incomplete contracts could affect outcome | Trial court’s continuance decisions within discretion | Upheld; no abuse of discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Martinez v. Combs, 49 Cal.4th 35 (2010) (defines employment via wage orders; does not adopt federal definition for wage claims)
- Borello & Sons, Inc. v. Department of Industrial Relations, 48 Cal.3d 341 (1989) (common law control factors for employment relationship)
- Estrada v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., 154 Cal.App.4th 1 (2007) (common law employment factors; label irrelevant)
- Reynolds v. Bement, 36 Cal.4th 1075 (2005) (corporate officers not personally liable for unpaid wages)
- Chao v. A-One Medical Services, Inc., 346 F.3d 908 (9th Cir. 2003) (economic reality test for FLSA employment status)
- Maddock v. KB Homes, Inc., 631 F.Supp.2d 1226 (C.D. Cal. 2007) (federal payroll involvement not sufficient for employer status)
- McDonald v. Antelope Valley Community College Dist., 45 Cal.4th 88 (2008) (de novo review in SAI; Martinez controls wage-order interpretation)