Source: https://www.morelaw.com/verdicts/case.asp?n=S238941&s=CA&d=125516
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 18:14:21+00:00

Document:
employer but against the payroll company as well.
these three causes of action.
reasonable expectations of the contracting parties.
with regard to the payment of wages.
misrepresentation causes of action lack merit.
documentation and records regarding her compensation.
refer to all of the related payroll company defendants as ADP.
ADP to prepare a final order reflecting its ruling.
a judgment dismissing plaintiff’s action against ADP.
provides payroll-related services to employers and employees.
attendance, vacation benefits, and time card approvals.
Code section 226.7. . . .
hourly rate of pay), in accordance with applicable labor laws.
and did not reflect data regarding meal and rest breaks.
of double-time compensation, she received no such payment.
of Appeal relied upon the appellate court decision in Futrell v.
contract between the employer and service provider.
decision regarding these three causes of action.
BETWEEN HER EMPLOYER AND ADP?
been amended since its enactment in 1872.
common law rule as it existed in 1872. (See, e.g., Martinez v.
as reflected in the current governing California decisions.
sue A to enforce the promise. (See, e.g., Seaver v. Ranson (N.Y.
plaintiff and another potential defendant]; Garcia v. Truck Ins.
by insurance company to hospital]; Murphy v. Allstate Ins. Co.
enforce agreement]; Hartman Ranch Co. v. Associated Oil Co.
assume promisee’s obligation to pay broker’s commission].
of the contract be to benefit the third party (see, e.g., Lucas v.
element of the third party beneficiary doctrine.
party enforcement at the time the contract was entered into.
surrounding circumstances . . . .” (Eisenberg, supra, 92 Colum.
and Socoma Companies, supra, 11 Cal.3d 394.
alleged breach of its contract with Altour.
oral as well as a written contract (see, e.g., Del E. Webb Corp.
paychecks and pay stubs that reflect the correct wages.
taxes on behalf of an employer.
on the Forms 940 and 941.
of the employer using the employer’s EIN.
taxes as either an employer or an agent.
funds provided by their employer, Altour, rather than ADP.
term has been used in prior third party beneficiary decisions.
meaning of the third party beneficiary doctrine.
contracting parties’ intent to benefit him]”; Neverkovec v.
ordinarily not a motivating purpose of the transaction.
tasks performed and the avoidance of potential penalties.
employees with regard to the amount of wages they receive.
the objectives of the contract.
obtain full recovery for unpaid wages from their employer.
breach of its obligations under its contract with the employer.
negligence-based tort causes of action against ADP is valid.
afforded by those remedial labor statutes and wage orders.
sustains as a result of the payroll company’s negligent conduct.
employee’s interests. (Cf. Cedars-Sinai Med. Center v.
obligations under its contract with plaintiff’s employer.
Financial Holdings, Ltd. v. Continental Lawyers Title Co.
litigation more complicated and more difficult to settle.
payroll company is likely to outweigh any potential benefit.
cause of action could go forward.
Appeal erred in this respect as well.
negligent misrepresentation claim lacks merit.
leave to amend. The matter is remanded to the Court of Appeal with directions to affirm the trial court judgment in favor of ADP in its entirety.

References: v.

 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v.

 v.

 v.