Opinion ID: 2567023
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Liability Under Frances T. v. Village Green Owners Assn.

Text: In Frances T. v. Village Green Owners Assn. (1986) 42 Cal.3d 490, 229 Cal.Rptr. 456, 723 P.2d 573 ( Frances T. ), we recognized that corporate directors may be jointly liable with the corporation and may be joined as defendants if they personally directed or participated in the tortious conduct. ( Id. at p. 504, 229 Cal. Rptr. 456, 723 P.2d 573, citing numerous authorities.) Their liability, if any, we noted, stems from their own tortious conduct, not from their status as directors or officers of the enterprise. ( Id. at p. 503, 229 Cal.Rptr. 456, 723 P.2d 573.) Director status therefore neither immunizes a person from individual liability nor subjects him or her to vicarious liability. ( Id. at p. 505, 229 Cal.Rptr. 456, 723 P.2d 573.) We agree with the Court of Appeal that plaintiff cannot state a cause of action under Frances T. As noted, Frances T. applies to tortious conduct ( Frances T., supra, 42 Cal.3d at pp. 503-504, 229 Cal. Rptr. 456, 723 P.2d 573), and a simple failure to comply with statutory overtime requirements, such as plaintiff alleges here, does not qualify. (See Hays v. Bank of America (1945) 71 Cal.App.2d 301, 305, 162 P.2d 679 [applying FLSA, noting federal cases have definitely determined that claims for such overtime wages ... are not ex delicto or founded on tort].) Plaintiff's boilerplate allegations of conspiracy do not alter the situation. `Agents and employees of a corporation cannot conspire with their corporate principal or employer where they act in their official capacities on behalf of the corporation and not as individuals for their individual advantage.' ( Applied Equipment Corp. v. Litton Saudi Arabia Ltd. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 503, 512, fn. 4, 28 Cal. Rptr.2d 475, 869 P.2d 454, quoting Wise v. Southern Pacific Co. (1963) 223 Cal.App.2d 50, 72, 35 Cal.Rptr. 652.) There can be no liability, moreover, if the alleged conspirator, though a participant in the agreement underlying the injury, was not personally bound by the duty violated by the wrongdoing and was only acting as the agent or employee of the party who did have that duty. ( Doctors' Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 49 Cal.3d 39, 44, 260 Cal.Rptr. 183, 775 P.2d 508; see also id. at p. 45, 260 Cal.Rptr. 183, 775 P.2d 508 [notwithstanding alleged conspiracy, insurer's agent not liable where duty is imposed by statute solely upon persons engaged in the business of insurance].) Nor has plaintiff alleged that the individual defendants here misappropriated to themselves, as individuals for their individual advantage, the unpaid wages he alleges his former employer owes him. He alleges, rather, that they caused the wages to be withheld by and in the accounts of the corporate defendants for the Defendants' collective benefit. Under such circumstances, California courts have declined to allow actions such as the instant one to proceed. (See, e.g., Oppenheimer v. Robinson, supra, 150 Cal.App.2d at p. 424, 309 P.2d 887 [employee not personally liable for nonpayment of wages to fellow employee]; Oppenheimer v. Moebius (1957) 151 Cal.App.2d 818, 820, 312 P.2d 314 [same, where no allegation that defendant employees had any duty to plaintiff to pay his wages or that they were guilty of any wrong].)