Joseph Dianda v. Pdei, Inc.

Good Law
377 F. App'x 676
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitApril 27, 201008-56981California576 words

Opinion

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

Plaintiff-appellant Joseph Dianda worked for two days as a “best boy” in the production of a television commercial, but was allegedly paid three days late. Dian-da sued the production company and PDEI, Inc. (“PDEI”) for various violations under the Fan* Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) and California law. The defendants moved to dismiss the action. The district court denied the motion as to the production company, but granted the motion as to PDEI after determining that PDEI was not Dianda’s “employer” under the FLSA or California law. Dianda appeals. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we AFFIRM.

I. “Employer” Status Under California’s Labor Code and FLSA

The essence of the test for “employer” status under the California Labor Code is “whether the principal has the right to control the manner and means by which the worker accomplishes the work.” Estrada v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc., 154 Cal.App.4th 1 , 64 Cal.Rptr.3d 327, 335 (2007). FLSA’s test is broader, asking whether the “individual [here, PDEI] exercises control over the nature and structure of the employment relationship.” Boucher v. Shaw, 572 F.3d 1087 , 1090-91 (9th Cir.2009) (quotation…

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.