Ruiz

Ruiz v. AFFINITY LOGISTICS CORP.

Good Law
697 F. Supp. 2d 1199·2010 WL 1038226·15 Wage & Hour Cas.2d (BNA) 1820·2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26765
United States District Court, Southern District of CaliforniaMarch 22, 2010Case 05CV2125 JLS (CAB)California10,545 words

Opinion

Opinion

Sammartino, J.

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER FINDING PLAINTIFF AND ABSENT CLASS MEMBERS PROPERLY CLASSIFIED AS INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS

The above-captioned class action came before the Court without a jury on December 14, 15, and 16, 2010. Attorneys Daniel A. Osborn, Elic Eliahu Anbar,' and Adrianne J. Leven appeared on behalf of Fernando Ruiz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated (“Plaintiffs”). Attorneys James H. Hanson and Adam Carl Smedstad appeared on behalf of Affinity Logistics Corp. (“Defendant” or “Affinity”). The Court heard testimony from witnesses Fernando Ruiz, Alfonso Sanchez, Oscar Arturo Reyes, Charles Hitt, Danny Lee Hansen, Robert William Crandell, and Gabriel Mejia. The Court heard opening arguments from counsel and admitted exhibits into evidence. At the close of trial, the parties waived oral argument, electing instead to file “final briefs” with the Court. (Doc. Nos. 178 & 180.)

This memorandum decision constitutes the Court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law. These are based on the testimony and evidence admitted at trial and the principles of law that apply to those facts.

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION

I. Background

Defendant Affinity Logistics…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.