Case Number: BC649522 Hearing Date: March 07, 2018 Dept: 46

Case Number: BC649522
WALTER ALIAGA VS GOLDRICH & KEST INDUSTRIES LLC

Filing Date: 02/06/2017
Case Type: Other Employment Complaint (General Jurisdiction)
Status: Pending

Future Hearings

03/07/2018 at 08:32 am in department 46 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012
Motion for Summary Judgment

DISCUSSION

Goldrich & Kest Industries, LLC’s (“GKI”) Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff (“P”) claims that he worked as a maintenance man at the following property:

Tarzana Springs
5825 Reseda Blvd
Tarzana, CA 91356

Plaintiff claims that this property is owned and managed by Defendant GKI, and that Defendant GKI was his employer. Plaintiff has produced paystubs topped by the logo “Goldrich + Kest,” and listing GKI’s address as the address of the employer. (Declaration of Walter Aliaga [hereinafter “Aliaga Dec.”] Exhibit A; Declaration of Jack D. Josephson [hereinafter “Josephson Dec.”] Exhibit B). His work uniform included a shirt with a “G&K” logo on it, and his coworkers and supervisor told him the logo stood for D GKI. (Id. ¶ 10). He clocked in on a tablet which bore GKI’s name, and when he called Human Resources, he used numbers that connect to GKI and spoke to people who identified themselves as employees of GKI. (Id. ¶¶ 11, 19). These facts are admissible pursuant to E.C. 702 as they are within the personal knowledge of Plaintiff and provide sufficient basis for the court to conclude that there is a triable issue of fact that GKI was his employer as alleged in the Complaint. Further, Plaintiff provides further evidence that GKI is the only extant company with a similar name and the Secretary of State’s website lists GKI at the address on the paystub. (Josephson Dec. Exhibit C). Such corroborating evidence supports Plaintiff’s assertions.

GKI maintains that it has no employees, has no ownership interest in Tarzana Springs, and does not manage Tarzana Springs. (Declaration of Michael E. Drandell [hereinafter “Drandell Dec.”] ¶ 4). GKI claims that it never hired Plaintiff, never provided him with any tax forms, and had no supervisory authority over him. (Id. ¶ 5). GKI’s denials will have to be presented to the jury to determine their credibility.

Labor Code § 3357 states that “[a]ny person rendering service for another, other than as an independent contractor, or unless expressly excluded herein, is presumed to be an employee.” Plaintiff has produced adequate evidence to show that he has rendered service for GKI; therefore, he is presumed to be an employee of GKI under L.C. §3357.

Accordingly, the motion is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED:

Frederick C. Shaller, Judge