Thank You For Submiting Feedback!
United States District Court for the Northern District of California
March 17, 2017, Decided; March 17, 2017, Filed
Case No. 3:13-cv-00057-WHO
[*916] ORDER [**2] DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DECERTIFY THE CLASS; GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT; GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO MAGDALENO AND DENYING AS TO COHICK AND ACKEL
Re: Dkt. Nos. 152, 154, 155
This is a classwide misclassification case involving vendors who perform property preservation services in California for Field Asset Services, Inc. I previously granted plaintiffs' renewed motion for class certification after they "limit[ed] the class to a group of vendors over which FAS has a uniform right of control." Certification Order at 2 (Dkt. No. 85). FAS now moves to decertify the class, and for summary judgment as to one of the named plaintiffs and two absent class members. Plaintiffs move for partial summary judgment as to their status as employees under the law, and their resulting entitlement to expenses and overtime pay.
While FAS again highlights manageability concerns that complicate class treatment, as it has throughout this litigation, those concerns are not substantial enough to justify decertifying the class. The class meets the requirements of Rule 23 and discovery has not revealed otherwise. The overwhelming weight of the evidence supports [**3] a finding that FAS retained and, more often than not, actually exercised a right to control the manner and means of the vendors' work. While some of the secondary factors for evaluating proper classification fall in FAS's favor, they cannot overcome the powerful evidence of control that establishes that the vendors are employees as a matter of law. A reasonable jury could not return a verdict for FAS on that issue. Accordingly, plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment is GRANTED as to FAS's affirmative defense that the vendors are independent contractors and as to its liability for failing to pay overtime and business expenses. FAS's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED as to purported class member Julia Magdaleno, but DENIED as to Matthew Cohick and Eric Ackel.
Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.
242 F. Supp. 3d 910 *; 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39000 **
FRED BOWERMAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. FIELD ASSET SERVICES, INC., et al., Defendants.
Subsequent History: Later proceeding at Bowerman v. Field Asset Servs., 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 2341 (9th Cir. Cal., Jan. 27, 2021)
Reversed by, Remanded by Bowerman v. Field Asset Servs., Inc., 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 18420 (9th Cir. Cal., July 5, 2022)
Prior History: Bowerman v. Field Asset Servs., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 163197 (N.D. Cal., Nov. 14, 2013)
vendors, class member, independent contractor, work order, employees, right to control, drivers, factors, certification order, training, summary judgment, preservation, plaintiffs', Decertify, reimbursement, parties, secondary, class certification, supervision, expenses, overtime, matter of law, certification, inspections, quotation, percent, hire, specifications, Discovery, notice