Opinion ID: 4512245
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: the extent to which the services provided

Text: by the home researchers and distributors were an integral part of DialAmerica’s business. 16 Id. These factual issues refer directly to the factors which determine whether someone is an employee or independent contractor. The district court resolved these disputes and granted DialAmerica’s motion for summary judgment. We reviewed the district court’s decision in DialAmerica and determined that summary judgment was a mischaracterization, but the proper outcome, as all the factual disputes were resolved prior to adjudication on the merits. 7 Id. at 1381, 1388. DialAmerica teaches that where there are questions of fact that need resolution, these questions must go to a fact-finder. 8 This 7 In DialAmerica, Judge Becker noted that, because the district court held a two-day hearing to find relevant facts, this Court would “simply treat the [district] court’s letter opinions as the findings of facts and conclusions of law required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 52, and its orders as judgments entered after trial pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 58.” 757 F.2d at 1381–82. Here, that avenue is not available to us, as no evidentiary hearing was held to find relevant facts to determine if summary judgment was appropriate. 8 An important distinction exists between a factual dispute, and a factual dispute that is material. Summary judgment is correctly granted in many situations where the parties genuinely dispute facts but where the dispute is not material to the adjudication of the case. See, e.g., Verma v. 3001 Castor, Inc., 937 F.3d 221, 229 (3d Cir. 2019) (granting summary judgment on the question of employee versus independent contractor status, but noting that “[i]n some cases, one or more 17 case presents such genuine disputes of material facts. Uber submitted a Statement of Undisputed Material Facts to which Plaintiffs responded with almost a hundred pages of disputes. For example, disputed facts include whether Plaintiffs are operating within Uber’s system and under Uber’s rules, and whether Plaintiffs or their corporations contracted directly with Uber. Although the District Court states that its decision derived from undisputed facts, the disputes presented by the parties go to the core of the DialAmerica factors and present a genuine dispute of material facts. Accordingly, we will remand to the District Court as summary judgment was inappropriate.