Santer v. Huff CA2/6

Filed 8/19/24 Santer v. Huff CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

ANDREW SANTER et al., 2d Civ. No. B331044 (Super. Ct. No. 56-2022- Plaintiffs and Respondents. 00569081) (Ventura County) v.

VICKI HUFF,

Defendant and Appellant.

Vicki Huff appeals a judgment awarding her $96,412 after a superior court trial de novo following an appeal by Andrew Santer (Santer) and Sondra Santer (Sondra) of a California Labor Commissioner decision in favor of Huff.1 (Lab. Code, § 98.2.) The court found Huff was an employee and the Santers were her employers. Huff contends the court erred by not awarding her compensation for all her working hours. We conclude, among

1 We refer to Sondra Santer by her first name, not from

disrespect, but for clarity.

other things, that substantial evidence supports the judgment. We affirm. FACTS Santer’s mother, Sondra, was an elderly woman living in her home in Leisure Village. Sondra needed assistance with shopping, meal preparation, and “light housework.” Santer posted an ad stating that he was searching for “a senior woman to share [L]eisure [V]illage home with current senior woman owner.” The work would include “light housework as needed, all typically between 10 [a.m.] to 7 [p.m.].” Huff responded, “I am a senior woman looking to share a home where I can assist.” In a subsequent message, Huff said, “I work part time for a charity. My hours are very flexible.” Huff signed a “roommate agreement.” It provided that she would pay “$0 rent” and “provide custodial support such as meals, transportation, wheelchair/walker escort, laundry, and assistance. This is not an Employment agreement and New Roomate [sic] is not an Employee.” Huff moved in and began providing services. She claimed Santer prohibited her from leaving the house for more than two hours on days other than Thursdays, Fridays, and Saturdays when she did charity work. Huff believed she was entitled to be paid wages. Huff filed a claim with the California Labor Commissioner. A Labor Commissioner hearing officer ruled in favor of Huff and found the Santers owed Huff for unpaid regular wages, unpaid overtime, liquidated damages, interest, and waiting time penalties for a total award of $362,170.07. The Santers filed an appeal to the superior court for a trial de novo. (Lab. Code, § 98.2.)