1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 4 SAN JOSE DIVISION 5 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. 11 12 With leave of the Court, Plaintiff filed a third amended complaint adding allegations that 13 || Huazhi Hu was his joint employer, and adding Hu as a defendant to Claim 3 for violations of 14 || California Labor Code §§ 201 and 203. At the Jury Instruction Conference, the Court requested 2 15 || additional briefing on a corporate officer’s potential liability as a joint employer. The Court now 16 || confirms that Plaintiff may proceed on his joint employer theory pursuant to the definition of 2 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 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.” || 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 set forth in Martinez.” Turman vy. Superior Ct. of Orange Co Cal. App. Att-969, 986 (2017). || Dated: March 28, 2022 BETH LABSON FREEMAN 28 United States District Judge