Expert Automotive Reconditioning v. Dept. of Industrial Relations CA4/3

I. INTRODUCTION

While appellant correctly identifies this as a “What’s in a name?” case, the Shakespearean reference sheds little light on its proper resolution. We are asked to determine whether the nugatory distinctions appellant identifies between Dynamic Auto Images and Dynamic Auto Images, Inc., require reversal of the judgment entered below. We conclude they do not. Labor Code section 2054 requires that all car washing businesses register with the Labor Commissioner annually. Car dealers, however, are exempt.1 When a deputy labor commissioner noticed a group of nine workers who appeared to be working for Expert washing cars at a local BMW dealership, he telephoned a woman named Sonia who worked for the company. Sonia told him the firm had workers’ compensation insurance, but was not registered with the commissioner. The deputy commissioner then issued a citation, fining “Expert Automotive Reconditioning, Inc., a corporation Doing Business As (dba) Dynamic Auto Images, Inc.” the maximum fine for operating a car washing business without being registered with the commissioner: $10,000.2 In a subsequent administrative hearing, Expert’s attorney explicitly acknowledged there was…