Bradley v. Networkers Internat. 2/5/09 CA4/1

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » California » Court of Appeal » 2009 » Bradley v. Networkers Internat. 2/5/09 CA4/1

State: California

Court: 1st District Court of Appeal 1st District Court of Appeal

Docket No: D052365

Case Date: 05/13/2009

Preview:Filed 2/5/09 Bradley v. Networkers International CA4/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

LES BRADLEY et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. NETWORKERS INTERNATIONAL LLC, Defendant and Respondent.

D052365

(Super. Ct. No. GIC862417)

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, William R. Nevitt, Jr., Judge. Affirmed.

Three plaintiffs1 filed a class action complaint against Networkers International, LLC (Networkers), alleging violations of state laws governing overtime pay, rest breaks, and meal breaks. Plaintiffs moved to certify the class, but the court denied the motion, concluding plaintiffs did not meet their burden to show common factual and legal

1

The plaintiffs are Les Bradley, Edwin Jennings, and Versil Milton.

questions would predominate over individual issues. Plaintiffs appeal. We conclude the court's ruling was not an abuse of discretion, and affirm the order. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Networkers is a business that provides technical personnel services to the telecommunications industry. In about 2004, Networkers contracted with three telecommunications companies, EXi Parsons Telecom LLC (EXi), Ericsson Inc. (Ericsson), and Telecom Network Specialists, to supply skilled laborers to install and service cell sites in Southern California.2 Each of these contracts provided the laborers would perform work under the direction of supervisors employed by the telecommunications company and set forth detailed requirements for worker qualifications and the work to be performed. Under these contracts, Networkers was responsible for recruiting and managing the employees, and warranted that the work would be performed in a satisfactory manner. Networkers thereafter retained approximately 140 skilled workers, including the three named plaintiffs, to fulfill these contracts and provide repair and installation services at the cell sites. Most workers were hired to work on cell sites for a particular customer, e.g., some workers were hired and trained to work only on Ericsson/T-Mobile cell sites, and others were hired and trained to work only on EXi sites. Plaintiffs Bradley

2 Cell sites are the tower facilities that receive and send radio transmissions to and from cellular phones. The Ericsson contract concerned primarily services for T-Mobile cell sites. For convenience, we shall refer to these sites as Ericsson/T-Mobile cell sites. 2

and Milton worked at Ericsson/T-Mobile cell sites and plaintiff Jennings worked at EXi cell sites. Networkers required each worker to sign a standard contract, entitled "Independent Contractor Agreement," which stated the worker was an independent contractor rather than an employee. Based on its characterization of the workers as independent contractors, Networkers did not pay premium wages for overtime, compensate the workers for travel or waiting times, or establish a policy requiring meal or rest breaks. In late 2005 or early 2006, plaintiffs Bradley and Jennings (along with numerous other workers) terminated their relationship with Networkers. Shortly after, Networkers replaced its "Independent Contractor Agreement" with an "Employment" agreement, and began paying overtime wages to these workers. Plaintiff Milton signed the new employment agreement, but left the company soon after. Within several months, the three plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit against Networkers, alleging Networkers violated wage and hour laws by failing to pay overtime and provide rest and meal breaks, failing to maintain required employment records, and requiring plaintiffs to underreport their hours. Plaintiffs claimed that although Networkers hired each worker using the standard " 'Independent Contractor Agreement,' " the actual relationship was in fact an employer-employee relationship and therefore Networkers was governed by state wage and hour laws. Plaintiffs sought to represent a

3

class of 140 technical support personnel who worked in California for Networkers at cell sites owned or operated by Networkers' customers.3 Based on these factual allegations, plaintiffs asserted seven causes of action: (1) failure to pay overtime compensation (Lab. Code,4

Download Bradley v. Networkers Internat. 2/5/09 CA4/1.pdf