Davis v. Ramsey CA1/1

Filed 9/18/15 Davis v. Ramsey CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

RUDOLPH J. DAVIS, Plaintiff and Appellant, A143523 v. CHARLES T. RAMSEY, (Alameda County Super. Ct. No. RG13697172) Defendant and Respondent.

Appellant Rudolph Davis argued unsuccessfully before the Labor Commissioner that respondent Charles Ramsey improperly classified him as an independent contractor and owed him thousands of dollars in wages and vacation pay. Davis sought relief in the trial court, which also rejected his claim. Because Davis has failed in this court to identify any reversible error, we affirm. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Ramsey is an attorney with an office in Oakland. Davis provided services for Ramsey (mostly courier and process-server tasks) from April 2006 to March 2012 under the business name “RJ Attorney Support Services.com.” Davis submitted invoices for his services, and Ramsey paid them. Although he never received a salary and did not raise the issue while he was providing his services, Davis later claimed that Ramsey had promised to pay him a $5,000 monthly salary. He filed a claim with the Labor Commissioner in February 2013 alleging he was owed $130,000 in wages, $1,384.80 in vacation pay, and other damages.

1

Attorney Margaret Tormey, a contract attorney for Ramsey’s law offices, represented Ramsey in the proceedings before the Labor Commissioner. Davis objected to this representation, claiming that Tormey had a conflict of interest because he previously had been a client of Tormey’s. Tormey explained that at one point she had a brief conversation with Davis when he asked her questions about the loss of the use of his car, but she provided only limited information and did not believe she had represented him. The hearing officer ruled that there was no conflict of interest and that Tormey could represent Ramsey. A hearing was held on August 29, 2013. The hearing officer dismissed Davis’s claims after concluding that the evidence and testimony provided “overwhelming support” that Davis was an independent contractor. Davis filed an appeal of the Labor Commissioner’s decision to the superior court, and a trial was scheduled for December 27, 2013. On November 14, 2013, Davis requested to continue the trial until March 21, 2014, to hire an attorney and to address “outstanding discovery.” The trial court ultimately continued the trial until April 11, 2014, but it did not order discovery to be reopened. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.020, subd. (b) [continuance of trial date does not operate to reopen discovery].) Right before the rescheduled trial date, Davis sued Ramsey and the Internal Revenue Service in federal court for declaratory relief and asked that the proceedings in state court be stayed. In response, the state superior court again continued the trial date, this time until October 10, 2014. On October 10, the court ordered that the matter be heard by Judge Brenda Harbin-Forte on October 15. At the hearing on October 15, Judge Harbin-Forte disclosed that she knew Ramsey and his family and that they “work together raising funds.” According to the minute order, “[b]eing no objections by the parties, grounds for Court’s disqualifications are waived.” The court then proceeded to hear testimony from Davis, Ramsey, and Tormey about Davis’s claims that Tormey had a conflict of interest in representing Ramsey.