Wang v. Ehang Holdings Limited

2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 4 SAN JOSE DIVISION 6 GARY WANG, Case No. 20-cv-00569-BLF 7 Plaintiff, ORDER RE PARTIES’ TRIAL BRIEFS 8 v. ON JOINT EMPLOYER ISSUE 9 EHANG HOLDINGS LIMITED, et al., [RE: ECF 161, 162] 10 Defendants.

12 With leave of the Court, Plaintiff filed a third amended complaint adding allegations that || Huazhi Hu was his joint employer, and adding Hu as a defendant to Claim 3 for violations of || California Labor Code §§ 201 and 203. At the Jury Instruction Conference, the Court requested 15 || additional briefing on a corporate officer’s potential liability as a joint employer. The Court now || confirms that Plaintiff may proceed on his joint employer theory pursuant to the definition of 17 “employer” set forth in Martinez v. Combs, 49 Cal. 4th 35, 66 (2010). While Martinez addressed Z 18 a claim under California Labor Code § 1194, California courts and district courts within the Ninth || Circuit have applied Martinez to claims brought under California Labor Code § 203. See Futrell || v. Payday California, Inc., 190 Cal. App. 4th 1419, 1431 (2010) (applying Martinez to claim for 21 violation of § 203); Bullard v. Wastequip Mfg. Co. LLC, No. CV 14-01309 MMM (SSx), 2015 || WL 12766467, at *16 n.89 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 14, 2015) (same). The definition of employer “does || not impose liability on individual corporate agents acting within the scope of their agency.”

24 || Martinez, 49 Cal. 4th at 66. However, an individual’s status as a shareholder and officer cannot || insulate him “from liability as a joint employer if his actions meet any one of the three definitions 26 set forth in Martinez.” Turman vy. Superior Ct. of Orange Co Cal. App. Att-969, 986 (2017).

27 || Dated: March 28, 2022 BETH LABSON FREEMAN 28 United States District Judge