Opinion ID: 2630272
Heading Depth: 6
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Defendant Combs.

Text: Plaintiffs contend defendant Combs exercised control over their wages and hours based on the events of May 27, 2000, at the El Campo field. On that date, as noted (see, ante, at p. 46 et seq.), plaintiffs had been picking freezer berries and stopped work to talk with Jose Serrano about unpaid wages. Juan Ruiz, Combs's agent, convinced some of Munoz's employees to return to work. According to plaintiff Asuncion Cruz, Juan [Ruiz] . . . told us to keep working and help Munoz. Juan told us not to worry and said he guaranteed we would be paid as his boss had checks he was delivering to Isidro Munoz. Cruz heard workers tell Juan they were concerned that the amount of the check he brought with him would not be enough to pay everyone. Juan told us not to worry as he would deliver even larger amounts of money from his boss to Isidro Munoz the following week, and even more money the week after that, which would be enough to pay us all. Cruz's declaration is consistent with those of others who heard Ruiz speak; the record contains no statements by Ruiz about what he said. Based on this evidence, plaintiffs contend that Combs offered [plaintiffs] employment through its agent Ruiz. Assuming for the sake of argument Ruiz was acting as Combs's agent in making the alleged statements, [49] the evidence in our view does not fairly support the inference that Ruiz offered plaintiffs employment. Certainly a promise to pay a person for work would be an offer of employment, as well as an exercise of control over wages and hours sufficient to bring the promisor within the wage order's definition of employer. (Wage Order No. 14, Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 11140, subd. 2(F).) But Ruiz did not offer plaintiffs employment with Combs. Instead, he asked plaintiffs to continue working to help Munoz and pointed out that Munoz was not yet utterly without funds to pay them, as he was still receiving payments from Combs. Plaintiffs' declarations show they understood the distinction, as they questioned Ruiz not about the terms of any hypothetical work for Combs but about whether the amount of the check [Ruiz had] brought with him would . . . be enough to pay everyone. That plaintiffs were not working for Combs on May 27 was also reasonably apparent in that they were harvesting freezer berries in bulk rather than picking and packing fresh berries for market sale. Again, plaintiffs understood the distinction and recognized Ruiz as `Juan,' the person [they had seen] checking the strawberries. . . for the company to whom Munoz delivered the market strawberries we picked for sale. (Italics added.) For these reasons, we find plaintiffs' argument lacks merit.