1 BARRY VAN SICKLE - BAR NO.

98645
1079 Sunrise Avenue
2 Suite B-315
3 Roseville, CA 95661
Telephone: (916) 549-8784
4 E-Mail: bvansickle@surewest.net
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
12 (MANx)
Plaintiff,
13
vs. NOTICE OF MOTION AND
14 MOTION FOR SUMMARY
CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY ADJUDICATION OF FACTS AND
15
INTERNATIONAL, a corporate CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
16 entity, AND DOES 1 - 20 PURSUANT TO F.R.C.P RULE
17 56(d)
Defendants.
18 DATE: August 11, 2009
19 TIME: 9:00 am
PLACE: Spring Street Courthouse,
20 Courtroom 21
21
ASSIGNED TO THE HONORABLE
22
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 5) Defendant CSI’s failure to pay Plaintiff Headley minimum wage and
24 overtime pay was in violation of state and federal labor laws.
25 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 2) The standard for determining whether or not an
9 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 This motion is supported by a legal Memorandum and a Declaration of
2 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 BARRY VAN SICKLE
11 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)