This case was last updated from Fresno County Superior Courts on 08/05/2019 at 16:23:48 (UTC).

Heather Roberts vs. Anthony Fraser

Case Summary

On 04/12/2018 Heather Roberts filed a Labor - Wrongful Termination lawsuit against Anthony Fraser. This case was filed in Fresno County Superior Courts, Bf Sisk Courthouse located in Fresno, California. The Judges overseeing this case are Black, Donald, Diaz, Monica and Simpson, Alan. The case status is Disposed - Dismissed.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******1267

  • Filing Date:

    04/12/2018

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Dismissed

  • Case Type:

    Labor - Wrongful Termination

  • Court:

    Fresno County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Bf Sisk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Fresno, California

Judge Details

Judges

Black, Donald

Diaz, Monica

Simpson, Alan

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

Roberts, Heather

Defendants

Bulldog Properties

www.bulldogproperties.net

Nexthome Cencal

Fraser, Laura

Nexthome, INC.

a Delaware corporation licensed to do business in the State of California

Fraser, Anthony Michael

Pontiacranchrealty.com

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

Chappars, Mike

Defendant Attorney

Armo, Lance E.

 

Court Documents

Reply filed

Reply; Comment: Defendants Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Reply to Opposition of Plaintiff

Opposition filed

Opposition; Comment: Opposition to Defendants Demurrer

Answer Filed

Answer/Response/Denial/Demurrer - No Fee; Comment: Defendants Demurrer to Termination in Violation of Public Policy

Request for Judical Notice

Request for Judical Notice; Comment: in Support of Defendants Demurrer

Declaration Filed

Declaration; Comment: Declaration of Counsel Lance E. Armo in Support of Defendants Demurrer

Declaration Filed

Declaration; Comment: Declaration of Anthony Michael Fraser in Support of Defendants Demurrer

Memorandum of Points and Authorities

Memorandum of Points & Authorities; Comment: in Support of Demurrer

Notice of Hearing

Notice of Hearing; Comment: in Support of Defendants Demurrer

Amended Document Filed

Amended Complaint - Claim Amount Unchanged (No Fee); Comment: FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR: (1) Termination in Violation of Public Policy; (2) Nonpayment of Wages; (3) Waiting Time Penalties Under Lab. Code 203; (4) Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Relations.

Request for Dismissal Received - Pending Review

Request for Dismissal

Notice Filed

Notice Filed; Comment: of calendar setting

Minute Order Attachment

Minute Order Attachment

Notice of Change of Address Filed

Notice of Change of Address

Minute Order Attachment

Minute Order Attachment

Answer Filed

Answer/Response/Denial/Demurrer - No Fee; Comment: Answer of Defendants to Unverified Complaint of Plaintiff [CCP 431.30]

Minute Order Attachment

Minute Order Attachment

Minute Order Attachment (Tentative Rulings Only)

Civil Document

Stipulation Filed

Stipulation; Comment: Stipulation Regarding Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)

26 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 01/28/2019
  • View Court Documents
  • Disposition: Judgment- Request for Dismissal filed; Judgment Type: Request for Dismissal filed; Party Names: Roberts, Heather; Fraser, Anthony Michael; Fraser, Anthony Michael; Fraser, Anthony Michael; Fraser, Anthony Michael; Fraser, Laura; Comment: with prejudice

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/03/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Disposition: Judgment- Dismissal of Party; Judgment Type: Dismissal of Party; Party Name:; Comment: without prejudice

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/10/2019
  • Court Trial- Judicial Officer: Simpson, Alan; Hearing Time: 9:00 AM; Cancel Reason: Dismissed; Comment: Estimated time for trial is 2-3 days

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/07/2019
  • Trial Readiness- Judicial Officer: Black, Donald; Hearing Time: 9:30 AM; Cancel Reason: Dismissed

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/15/2019
  • Mandatory Settlement Conference- Hearing Time: 10:00 AM; Cancel Reason: Dismissed

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/28/2019
  • View Court Documents
  • Request for Dismissal Received - Pending Review- Request for Dismissal

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/09/2019
  • View Court Documents
  • Notice Filed- Notice Filed; Comment: of calendar setting

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/13/2018
  • OSC - ADR Stipulation- Judicial Officer: Diaz, Monica; Hearing Time: 8:37 AM; Cancel Reason: Off Calendar

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/09/2018
  • Referral to ADR

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/09/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Minute Order Attachment- Minute Order Attachment

    Read MoreRead Less
47 More Docket Entries
  • 05/31/2018
  • Financial info for Fraser, Anthony Michael: Transaction Assessment $435.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/31/2018
  • Financial: Fraser, Anthony Michael; Total Financial Assessment $435.00; Total Payments and Credits $435.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/26/2018
  • Financial info for Fraser, Anthony Michael: EFile Payment Receipt # WEB-2018-46320 Fraser, Anthony Michael $60.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/26/2018
  • Financial info for Fraser, Anthony Michael: Transaction Assessment $60.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/01/2018
  • Financial info for Fraser, Anthony Michael: EFile Payment Receipt # ACCT-2018-01967 Fraser, Anthony Michael $435.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/31/2018
  • Financial info for Fraser, Anthony Michael: Transaction Assessment $435.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/31/2018
  • Financial: Fraser, Anthony Michael; Total Financial Assessment $495.00; Total Payments and Credits $495.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/13/2018
  • Financial info for Roberts, Heather: EFile Payment Receipt # WEB-2018-26484 Roberts, Heather $435.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/13/2018
  • Financial info for Roberts, Heather: Transaction Assessment $435.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/13/2018
  • Financial: Roberts, Heather; Total Financial Assessment $435.00; Total Payments and Credits $435.00

    Read MoreRead Less

Complaint Information

MIKE CHAPPARS, ESQ., SBN: 290137

LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT C. ABRAMS

5412 N. Palm Avenue, Suite 101 E-FILED Fresno, California 93704

Telephone: (559) 431-9710 6/18/2018 3:54 PM

Facsimile: ~ (559) 431-4108 FRESNO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT Email: mike@rcabramslaw.com , By: A. Ramos, Deputy

Attorneys for Plaintiff, HEATHER ROBERTS.

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF FRESNO

kkkkk HEATHER ROBERTS, Case No. 18CECGO01267 Plaintiff,

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Vs. FOR: ANTHONY MICHAEL FRASER, an (1) Termination in Violation of Public individual; ANTHONY MICHAEL Policy; FRASER doing business as BULLDOG (2) Nonpayment of Wages; PROPERTIES; ANTHONY MICHAEL (3) Waiting Time Penalties Under Lab. FRASER doing business as NEXTHOME Code § 203; CENCAL; ANTHONY MICHAEL (4) Intentional Interference with FRASER doing business as Prospective Economic Relations. PONTIACRANCHREALTY.COM,;

ANTHONY MICHAEL FRASER doing business as WWW.BULLDOGPROPERTIES.NET; LAURA FRASER, an individual; and DOES 1 to 30, inclusive,

Defendants.

PARTIES

1. Plaintiff HEATHER ROBERTS (hereinafter “PLAINTIFF”’) was, and now 1s, an individual and resident of the City of Clovis, County of Fresno, State of California.

2. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges that at all times relevant hereto that ANTHONY MICHAEL FRASER, an individual, was a resident of, and doing business in, Fresno County, California.

3. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges that at all times relevant hereto that LAURA FRASER, an individual, was a resident of, and doing business in, Fresno County, California.

4, Defendant ANTHONY MICHAEL FRASER, BRE License number 1355047, does business as a Real Estate Broker under the names BULLDOG PROPERTIES, NEXTHOME CENCAL, PONTIACRANCHREALTY.COM, and WWW.BULLDOGPROPERTIES.NET.

5. Defendants ANTHONY MICHAEL FRASER and LAURA FRASER are the owners and operators of NEXTHOME CENTCAL.

6. PLAINTIFF is ignorant of the true names and capacities of Defendants sued herein as DOES 1 through 30, inclusive, and therefore sues these Defendants by such fictitious names. PLAINTIFF will amend this First Amended Complaint to allege their true names and capacities when the same have been ascertained. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges that each of these fictitiously named Defendants are responsible in some manner for the acts or omissions alleged in this First Amended Complaint and that PLAINTIFF'S injuries were proximately caused by the acts or omissions of these Defendants.

7. At all times herein mentioned, each Defendant was the agent, servant

or employee of each of the remaining Defendants and was, in doing the things complained of

or employee of each of the remaining Defendants and was, in doing the things complained of herein, acting within the course and scope of his/her/its agency and employment, and acting with full knowledge or subsequent ratification of his/her/its principals or employees. 8. The term "DEFENDANTS" shall refer to all named Defendants.

herein, acting within the course and scope of his/her/its agency and employment, and acting with full knowledge or subsequent ratification of his/her/its principals or employees. 8. The term "DEFENDANTS" shall refer to all named Defendants.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

9. The events, for which this action concerns, occurred in the County of Fresno and the State of California, and therefore this court has the jurisdiction to hear and resolve this matter.

BACKGROUND ALLEGATIONS

10. Before working for NEXTHOME, PLAINTIFF had established

numerous relationship with clients and with other professionals, including other agents and venders.

11. PLAINTIFF was hired to be an employee of NEXTHOME CENCAL, a subsidiary of NEXTHOME, INC. (hereinafter “NEXTHOME") on or around May 15, 2017.

12. PLAINTIFF signed an employment contract at the time she was hired, but it was lost by DEFENDANTS. She was later presented with a new employment agreement that contained different terms than the original.

13. DEFENDANTS willfully misclassified PLAINTIFF as an independent contractor, memorializing the misclassification in an INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR AGREEMENT WITHOUT ARBITRATION.

14. DEFENDANTS made demands dictating PLAINTIFF’S time regarding hours, leads, sales meetings, methods, venders and schedule in a manner that is consistent with an employer-employee relationship rather than an independent contractor relationship.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

(Termination in Violation of Public Policy -against all DEFENDANTS)

19. PLAINTIFF incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 18 as though fully set forth herein.

20. From May 15, 2017, to August 14, 2017, PLAINTIFF was employed by DEFENDANTS as a Sales Associate, responsible for selling homes.

21. DEFENDANTS attempted to simultaneously characterize PLAINTIFF as an independent contractor and exert significant control over her time, tasks, and actions, including making demands on what areas PLAINTIFF could target, requiring PLAINTIFF to appear at daily morning meetings, and making demands on what third party vendors PLAINTIFF should use.

22. Although an at-will employee may be terminated for no reason, or for an arbitrary or irrational reason, there can be no right to terminate for an unlawful reason, or for a reason that contravenes fundamental public policy as expressed in a statutory or constitutional provision, or in administrative regulations authorized by statute.

23. By misclassifying PLAINTIFF as an independent contractor, rather than an employee, DEFENDANTS violated one or a number of statutes including Labor Code Section 2750.5.

23. By misclassifying PLAINTIFF as an independent contractor, rather than an employee, DEFENDANTS violated one or a number of statutes including Labor Code Section 2750.5. 24. The Public Policy against misclassifying employees as independent contractors affords a great benefit to the public as a whole. Even under the policy articulated at the time that PLAINTIFF was terminated, PLAINTIFF would have been found to have been misclassified as an independent contractor for numerous reasons, including the requirement that employees come to mandatory daily meetings where management directed the daily tasks of employees.

24. The Public Policy against misclassifying employees as independent contractors affords a great benefit to the public as a whole. Even under the policy articulated at the time that PLAINTIFF was terminated, PLAINTIFF would have been found to have been misclassified as an independent contractor for numerous reasons, including the requirement that employees come to mandatory daily meetings where management directed the daily tasks of employees.

25. The right of employees to be properly classified as employees is a fundamental and substantial right. Misclassified workers are denied Worker’s Compensation, often suffer a greater tax burden, do not accrue Social Security benefits, and are not qualified to receive unemployment compensation.

26. DEFENDANTS had a widespread company policy of making demands of their workers that can only legally be made of employees, while simultaneously abrogating all responsibilities and liabilities by misclassifying employees as independent contractors.

27. DEFENDANTS’ policies and actions violated worker’s rights, statute, and public policy.

28. DEFENDANTS?’ illegal policies were the primary motivating factor in PLAINTIFF’S termination, in that DEFENDANTS fired PLAINTIFF for behaving as an independent contractor. This constitutes a termination in violation of public policy.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

(Nonpayment of Wages -against all DEFENDANTS)

29. PLAINTIFF incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 28 as though fully set forth herein.

30. Beginning on or about May 15, 2017, and continuing until August 14, 2017, PLAINTIFF was employed by DEFENDANTS as a sales associate in the City and County of Fresno in the State of California.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

(Waiting Time Penalties Under Lab. Code § 203 -against all DEFENDANTS) 39. PLAINTIFF incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 38 as

though fully set forth herein.

40. The DEFENDANTS’ failure to pay wages, as alleged above, was willful in that DEFENDANTS withheld, and still have not paid, commissions owed, and in that DEFENDANTS deliberately misclassified PLAINTIFF as an independent contractor to avoid paying wages while maintaining control over PLAINTIFF in a manner constituting an

employer-employee relationship.

employer-employee relationship. 41. DEFENDANTS failed to pay PLAINTIFF a final paycheck. The waiting time penalty owed to PLAINTIFF is equal to or near to $2,525.

41. DEFENDANTS failed to pay PLAINTIFF a final paycheck. The waiting time penalty owed to PLAINTIFF is equal to or near to $2,525.

FORTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Relations - against all DEFENDANTYS)

42. PLAINTIFF incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 41 as though fully set forth herein.

43. PLAINTIFF had a number of relationships with customers, agents, and venders that had in the past resulted in economic benefit to the PLAINTIFF.

44, At, or soon after, the time that PLAINTIFF was terminated, DEFENDANTS contacted customers, agents, and venders and disparaged PLAINTIFF.

45. DEFENDANTS deliberately and knowingly sought to interfere with PLAINTIFEF’S relationships with customers, other agents, and with venders.

46. PLAINTIFF’S relationships with customers, venders, and agents have been disrupted, and DEFENDANTS communications to those parties are the substantial cause.

47. PLAINTIFF has been harmed economically by the disruptions caused by DEFENDANTS.

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Unfair Business Practices) 48. PLAINTIFF incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 47 as though fully set forth herein. 49. DEFENDANTS policy of misclassifying employees was and is an

unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent business practice. 50. Asadirect and proximate result of DEFENDANTS’ actions, PLAINTIFF has been injured in that she lost employment, was denied business opportunities

improperly, was denied commission owed, was denied owed wages, and was unable to

S LN =

© O o0 2 O W

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFF prays for judgment against Defendants as

follows: 1. For payment of unpaid wages and commissions; o For payment of wage and employment fees and penalties; 3. For liquidated damages; 4. For lost profits; 3, Any other relief that the court deems proper; and 6. For reasonable attorneys’ fees, and cost of suit, according to proof in

accordance with Sections 510 and 1194 of the California Labor Code.

DATED: June | U, 2018.

LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT C. ABRAMS