Holmgren, et al. v. County of Los Angeles

Kalisch, Cotugno & Rust, L.L.P. filed a lawsuit alleging class action on behalf of common-law Los Angeles County employees who are mislabeled as "contract employees" or "leased employees" (Holmgren et al. v. Los Angeles County).

The lawsuit was brought to force Los Angeles County to recognize class members now and in the future as County employees and members of the Civil Service, entitled to receive salaries, pay, benefits, rights and privileges of other County employees. The lawsuit also seeks compensation resulting from the denial of County salaries and benefits.

The class action lawsuit contends that the County has illegally misclassified employees, using labels such as "contract employee," to avoid paying basic health, pension and other employment benefits since at least the late 1980s.

If you work now or did work at Los Angeles County at any time in the past or the present as an "temporary agency" employee, "leased" employee, "contractor," and/or "independent contractor," and would like to notify the law firm of your situation, please download this Potential Class Member Information Form in text format or Microsoft Word format, print it, fill it out, and fax, email or mail to our office at the following address:

Holmgren Class Action Recent Developments

• April 30, 2008:  Petition for Review denied by the California Supreme Court.  We are, of course, deeply disappointed with this result. Nevertheless, we want to thank all County employees, especially John Holmgren, Mike Sheppa and Keith Johnston, who gave their time and energy in assisting us in prosecuting this case.  We also thank again the organizations and their counsel who supported us through amicus briefs before the Court of Appeal and the California Supreme Court.

• March 7, 2008:  Petition for Review filed with the California Supreme Court.
• January 30, 2008:  Court of Appeal affirms the trial court ruling.  The Class representatives intend to file a Petition for Review to the California Supreme Court.
• October 22, 2007:  Appellants file Reply Brief.
• September 21, 2007:  County files Respondent's Brief.
• May 22, 2007:  Appellants' Opening Brief filed.
• November 3, 2006:  Notice of Appeal filed from Judgment.
• October 26, 2006:  Court enters Judgment based on rulings on Threshold Issues.
• September 28, 2006:
  Plaintiffs File Notice of Appeal.
• September 13, 2006:  Status Conference.
• August 3, 2006  The Trial Court issued its decision on Threshold Issue No. 3 and ruled that plaintiffs are not entitled to pension benefits or service credits affecting the calculation of such benefits under the County Employees Retirement Law, absent plaintiffs' compliance with the requirements of the County's civil service system.  A status conference has also been scheduled for September 13, 2006 to review, among other things, whether issues remain to be decided prior to entry of final judgment. Appellate review of the Court's rulings likely will be sought following entry of judgment.
• May 10, 2006:  The trial court issued its decision on Threshold Issue No. 2 and ruled that common law employees of the County are not entitled to salary, benefits (excluding pension benefits provided by the Los Angeles County Employees Retirement Association (LACERA) under the County Employees Retirement Law of 1937 (CERL)), and protections provided classified employees under the County Charter, the County Code, and the Los Angeles County Civil Service Commission Rules.  This ruling did not address whether class members were improperly denied pension benefits.  That issue will be addressed in Threshold Issue No. 3, which likely will be heard and ruled upon later this year.
• April 25, 2006, 9:00 a.m.:  Hearing on Threshold Issue 2, which states that: "In the event that plaintiffs are found to be common law employees of the County upon application of common law employment factors, are they entitled to the salary, benefits (excluding pension benefits provided by the Los Angeles County Employees Retirement Law of 1937 (CERL) [to be decided separately], and protections provided classified employees under the County Charter, the County Code, and the Los Angeles County Civil Service Commission Rules.
• October 18, 2005:  The Court ruled on Threshold Issue No. 1 concerning the statute of limitations and the applicability of the Government Claims Act to plaintiffs' claims. The Court found that the statute of limitations is three years and accrues each time a "contract" employee is hired or rehired within the statutory period and is labled a contractor. The Court also found that plaintiffs' claims are subject to the Government Claims Act but deferred ruling on the Act's applicability to the specific claims in the lawsuit and the accrual of claims under the Act. (Plaintiffs filed a claim under the Government Claims Act on September 21, 2000 and filed their Complaint on November 29, 2000.)
• September 26, 2005:  Hearing regarding statute of limitation issues/Status Conference.
• July 29, 2005:  Today the Court certified the class for the purpose of addressing plaintiffs' claims for injunctive and declaratory relief without prejudice to a later application to modify the class, including certifying the class for damages. The certified class is as follows:

All persons who, currently or in the past, have performed services for the County, where the performance of such services was not of a temporary (less than one year), emergency or recurrent nature, who were not treated as classified County employees (e.g., "contract employees," "leased employees," "temporary employees," and/or "independent contractors," who were not on the County's classified employees payroll and who did not receive retirement or customary employee benefits under the County Charter or County Code), but who worked for the County as part of an integrated work force with classified County employees subject to supervision by County employees, under common law principles, and who have been paid by entities other than the County and/or directly by the County with payments reported on IRS Form 1099.  Excluded from this class are members of the class certified in Shiell v. County of Los Angeles, BC208582 and all officers and unclassified positions as defined by the County Charter and County Code.

The Court also appointed Kalisch, Cotugno & Rust, LLP as class counsel and set a briefing schedule regarding statute of limitations issues, with the County's opening brief due August 12, 2005, plaintiffs' opposition brief due September 2, 2005, and the County's reply brief due September 16, 2005. A hearing on these issues, as well as a further status conference, is set for September 26, 2005.

• June 10, 2005, 10:30 a.m.  Status Conference


• May 20, 2005 Today is deadline for County's opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification.


• March 25, 2005, 1:30 p.m. Status Conference, Department 311.
• December 13, 2004 Last day for County to file opposition to plaintiffs' motion for class certification.
  
• October 29, 2004, 9:45 a.m. Status Conference.
  
• August 13, 2004, 9:45 a.m. - Further Status Conference (telephonic), Department 323 at 600 South Commonwealth Ave., Los Angeles
• May 28, 2004 - Today, Plaintiffs will file Motion for Class Certification.
• March 5, 2004, 11:00 a.m. - Status Conference
• February 26, 2004 - In Metropolitan Water Dist. v. Superior Court (Cargill), S102371, the related litigation before Judge McCoy, the California Supreme Court ruled today that MWD had a duty to enroll in the state's retirement system its common-law employees that it paid through employment agencies. To read the Supreme Court Opinion in Adobe Acrobat click here.
• February 5, 2004 - Status conference postponed to March 5, 2004 @ 11:00 a.m.
• June 19, 2003 - Parties' conference with Judge McCoy regarding production of documents.
• May 9, 2003 - County begins producing documents identifying putative class members. A status conference has been scheduled for June 17, 2003.
• Dec. 11, 2002 - The Supreme Court denied the County's Petition for review.
• Oct. 15, 2002 - County filed petition for review in Supreme Court of denial of petition by Court of Appeal.
• Oct. 3, 2002 - Court of Appeal denied County's Petition for Writ of Mandamus in Holmgren and Shiell cases.
• Sept. 19, 2002 - Shiell and Holmgren plaintiffs filed Preliminary Opposition to County's Petition for Writ of Mandamus in the Court of Appeal.
• August 12, 2002 - County filed another Petition for Writ of Mandamus in the Court of Appeal in Shiell and Holmgren cases.
• July 19, 2002 - Plaintiffs in Holmgren and related Hall and Shiell cases filed Amici Curiae brief in support of Real Parties in Interest in Cargill v. Metropolitan Water District of Southern California v. Superior Court of CA, California Supreme Court Case No. S102371.
• June 21, 2002 - County's demurrers rejected.
• January 30, 2002 - The Civil Service Commission declined to exercise jurisdiction over the Holmgren case, as plaintiffs had suggested, sending the case back to the Superior Court. Future proceedings in Holmgren will be in the Superior Court.
• October 16, 2001 - The Court of Appeal ruled in favor of the plaintiff workers in the Cargill (Metropolitan Water District) case in which the Holmgren plaintiffs appeared as amici curiae. To read the Court's Opinion, click here. The Supreme Court granted review of the Cargill case and briefs are being submitted.
• July 25, 2001 - County's Petition for Mandamus denied.
• June 26, 2001 - The County filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the Court of Appeal, seeking to reverse the Superior Court's decision and prevent the Civil Service Commission proceedings from going forward.
• June 19, 2001 - Plaintiffs filed their Class Action Petition with the Civil Service Commission, pursuant to the Superior Court's referral.
• April 27, 2001 - Superior Court denied County's demurrers, but held that the Civil Service Commission may be able to provide a remedy for some of plaintiffs' claims. The Court therefore referred plaintiffs' claims to the Civil Service Commission for consideration and stayed the Court proceedings pending completion of the CSC proceedings.
• February 13, 2001 - Defendant filed demurrers.
• December 15, 2000 - Plaintiffs issued written discovery requests and issued notices of deposition to the County.