On January 30, the Supreme Court granted the defendant's petition for review. Case No. S206874. And on June 26, the Court ordered the parties to submit letter briefs:
discussing the relevance of Martinez v. Combs (2010) 49 Cal.4th 35, 52-57, 73, and IWC wage order No. 1-2001, subdivision 2(D)-(F) (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 11010, subd. 2(D)-(F)), to the issues in this case. (See also Sotelo v. Medianews Group, Inc. (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 639, 660-662; Bradley v. Networkers Internat., LLC (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 1129, 1146-1147.)
Interesting. Martinez (discussed here) held that the IWC Wage Order defines an employer as one who, directly or indirectly, or through an agent or any other person, (1) engages, (2) suffers or permits any person to work, or (3) exercises control over the wages, hours, or working conditions of any person. Martinez held further that Labor Code 1194 (minimum wage and overtime) adopts this broad, disjunctive definition of "employer."
Sotelo (discussed here) affirmed a trial court order denying certification of a class of newspaper carriers, stating that the trial court should have analyzed employment vs. independent contractor status under Martinez, but that the failure to do so was harmless error.
As always, stay tuned here for further developments. This is going to be interesting.