Ybarra v. John Bean Techs. Corp.

• Decision Date: 15 February 2012
• Docket Number: No. 1:11–CV–00288–SMS.,1:11–CV–00288–SMS.
• Citation: Ybarra v. John Bean Techs. Corp., 853 F.Supp.2d 997 (E.D. Cal. 2012)
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California
• Parties: Pedro V. YBARRA and Mary I. Ybarra, Plaintiffs, v. JOHN BEAN TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; and Doe 1 through Doe 100, Defendants.

853 F.Supp.2d 997

Pedro V. YBARRA and Mary I. Ybarra, Plaintiffs,

v.JOHN BEAN TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; and Doe 1 through Doe 100, Defendants.

No. 1:11–CV–00288–SMS.

United States District Court, E.D. California.

Feb. 15, 2012.

Douglas L. Gordon, Miles, Sears & Eanni, Fresno, CA, for Plaintiffs.

Mark David Sayre, Henry Turner, Phv, Patrick Lamb, Phv, Valorem Law Group LLC, Noelle Day, Phv, John Bean Technologies Corporation, Patrick Lamb, Phv, Valorem Law Group LLC, Chicago, IL, for Defendants.

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

SANDRA M. SNYDER, United States Magistrate Judge.

DefendantJohn Bean Technologies Corporation(“JBT”) moves for summary judgment on Plaintiffs' first cause of action for negligence, contending that Plaintiff's negligence claim is subject to and precluded by the exclusive remedy provision of California Labor Code §§ 3600and3602.Claiming that he is an independent contractor, Plaintiff¹ argues that the exclusive remedy provision does not apply to him.Having reviewed the parties' briefs and applicable law, this Court now grants Defendant's motion for summary judgment.

I.Undisputed Facts

From 2007 through 2010, PlaintiffPedro Ybarra worked as a temporary employee in JBT's FoodTech facility in Madera, California, for periods of approximately nine months, 5 months, three months, and one week.Randstad North America, L.P., doing business as Placement Pros, secured Plaintiff's positions pursuant to Temporary Services Agreements with JBT.A Temporary Services Agreement for the period of April 1, 2009 through November 2, 2010, was in effect on the date of the incident in which Plaintiff alleges that he was injured.Plaintiff was working on JBT's premises when he was injured.

Placement Pros initially evaluated Plaintiff's skills.Placement Pros agreed to “furnish to placements the location and name of the person to whom to report,”“direct the placements to perform their duties under the supervision and control of JBT's designated supervisors,” and “direct placements to comply with all applicable rules, regulations, policies and procedures including but not limited to fire protection, safety and security.”JBT paid Plaintiff's compensation plus a fee to Placement Pros, which then calculated withholding amounts and prepared Plaintiff's paycheck.

The agreement provided that JBT would “furnish a safe and appropriate place to work”“provide all safety equipment and supplies with the exception of safety shoes,” and “furnish supervision, equipment, machinery, tools, materials and supplies necessary for the performance of the work.”JBT took “full responsibility for the safety of its work, including supervision and performance of all its employees engaged therein.”The agreement specified that Placement Pros would obtain workers' compensation insurance to cover workers placed at JBT, with JBT named as an additional insured.

If Plaintiff required any training, JBT provided it.Plaintiff attended safety meetings with regular JBT employees.Like other JBT employees, Plaintiff sometimes used tools provided by JBT and sometimes used his own tools.

At JBT, Plaintiff worked as a general laborer, which he described a being a general helper who went where he was needed.He was initially assigned to the machine shop to deburr machine parts, and later worked in assembly and installation.Plaintiff's work, helping assemble JBT cookers, was part of JBT's regular business.Various JBT employees assigned Plaintiff work and directed his activities; other regular JBT employees could ask Plaintiff for help.Plaintiff testified that JBT controlled and directed his activities while he worked there.

Plaintiff testified that, in the pipe shop, he was primarily supervised by Mike, the lead man, and George, Plaintiff's work buddy.The lead man assigned work to Plaintiff and determined whether Plaintiff would work on his assigned task or be pulled off to do another job.Plaintiff reported to his work buddy, who confirmed Plaintiff's work and directed him to do it over, if necessary.Plaintiff testified that he received “less supervision” from Sergio, who he described as “the actual person in the pipe shop.”

II.Summary JudgmentA.Applicable Law

Summary judgment should be granted “if the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”F.R.Civ.P. 56(c)(2);Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co.,398 U.S. 144, 157, 90 S.Ct. 1598, 26 L.Ed.2d 142(1970);Fortyune v. American Multi–Cinema, Inc.,364 F.3d 1075, 1080(9th Cir.2004).The party seeking summary judgment bears the initial burden of establishing the basis of its motion and of identifying the portions of the declarations, pleadings, and discovery that demonstrate absence of a genuine issue of material fact.Celotex Corp. v. Catrett,477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265(1986);Soremekun v. Thrifty Payless, Inc.,509 F.3d 978, 984(9th Cir.2007).A fact is material if it could affect the outcome of the suit under applicable law.SeeAnderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,477 U.S. 242, 248–49, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202(1986);Thrifty Oil Co. v. Bank of America Nat'l Trust & Savings Ass'n,322 F.3d 1039, 1046(9th Cir.2003).A dispute about a material fact is genuine if there is sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to return a verdict for the non-moving party.Anderson,477 U.S. at 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505;Long v. County of Los Angeles,442 F.3d 1178, 1185(9th Cir.2006).

When the moving party will have the burden of proof on an issue at trial, it must demonstrate that no reasonable trier of fact could find other than for the moving party.Soremekun,509 F.3d at 984.When the non-moving party will have the burden of proof on an issue at trial, the movant may prevail by presenting evidence that negates an essential element of the non-moving party's claim or merely by pointing out that no evidence supports an essential element of the non-moving party's claim.SeeSoremekun,509 F.3d at 984;Nissan Fire and Marine Ins. Co. v. Fritz Cos., Inc.,210 F.3d 1099, 1105–06(9th Cir.2000).If a moving party fails to carry its burden of production, then “the non-moving party has no obligation to produce anything, even if the non-moving party would have the ultimate burden of persuasion.”Nissan Fire & Marine,210 F.3d at 1102–03.If the moving party meets its initial burden, the burden then shifts to the opposing party to establish that a genuine issue as to any material fact actually exists.Id. at 1103.The opposing party cannot “ ‘rest upon the mere allegations or denials of [its] pleading’ but must instead produce evidence that ‘sets forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.’ ”Estate of Tucker v. Interscope Records,515 F.3d 1019, 1030(9th Cir.)( quotingF.R.Civ.P. 56(e)), cert. denied,555 U.S. 827, 129 S.Ct. 174, 172 L.Ed.2d 44(2008).

The evidence of the opposing party must be believed, and all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from the facts placed before the court must be drawn in favor of the opposing party.SeeAnderson,477 U.S. at 255, 106 S.Ct. 2505;Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp.,475 U.S. 574, 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538(1986);Stegall v. Citadel Broadcasting Co.,350 F.3d 1061, 1065(9th Cir.2003).Nonetheless, inferences are not drawn out of the air, and it is the opposing party's obligation to produce a factual predicate from which the inference may be drawn.SeeSanders v. City of Fresno,551 F.Supp.2d 1149, 1163(E.D.Cal.2008), affirmed,340 Fed.Appx. 377(9th Cir.2009);UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Sinnott,300 F.Supp.2d 993, 997(E.D.Cal.2004).“A genuine issue of material fact does not spring into being simply because a litigant claims that one exists or promises to produce admissible evidence at trial.”del Carmen Guadalupe v. Negron Agosto,299 F.3d 15, 23(1st Cir.2002).A court has the discretion in appropriate circumstances to consider materials that are not properly brought to its attention, even though a court is not required to examine the entire file for evidence establishing a genuine issue of material fact when the opposing party has not set forth the evidence with adequate references. See Southern California Gas Co. v. City of Santa Ana, 336 F.3d 885, 889(9th Cir.2003);Carmen v. San Francisco Unified School District,237 F.3d 1026, 1031(9th Cir.2001).If the nonmoving party fails to produce evidence sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact, the moving party is entitled to summary judgment.SeeNissan Fire & Marine,210 F.3d at 1103.

B.Is Workers' Compensation the Exclusive Remedy Available to Plaintiff?

“Workers' compensation provides the exclusive remedy against an employer for an injury sustained by an employee in the course of employment and compensable under the workers' compensation code.”Angelotti v. Walt Disney Co.,192 Cal.App.4th 1394, 1403, 121 Cal.Rptr.3d 863(2011).SeeCal.Labor Code §§ 3600and3602.This means that an injured employee may not bring a tort action against the employer if the conditions for workers' compensation are present.Id.The exclusivity rule is based in the “presumed compensation bargain in which the employer assumes liability for injury or death arising out of and in the course of employment without regard to fault and compensation is relatively swift, in exchange for limitations on the amount of liability.”Id.,quotingShoemaker v. Myers,52 Cal.3d 1, 16, 276 Cal.Rptr. 303, 801 P.2d 1054(1990)(internal quotations omitted).The workers' compensation code must be liberally construed to extended benefits to all persons injured in their employment.Cal. Labor Code § 3202.

1.Who is a Special Employee?

Under California's workers' compensation code, an employee is “every person in the service of an employer under any appointment or...