Dupont v. Avalon Hollywood Services

Filed 1/16/07  Dupont v. Avalon Hollywood Services CA2/7

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b).  This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SEVEN

            APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County.  James R. Dunn, Judge.  Reversed with directions.

            Harris & Ruble and Alan Harris for Plaintiffs and Appellants.

            Littler Mendelson, Gordon A. Letter and Robert S. Blumberg for Defendant and Respondent.

_______________________________

            Plaintiff Jeanne Dupont and other former members of a motion picture production team brought this action for back wages and penalties against Avalon Hollywood Services, a production services company.  Plaintiffs contend Avalon is liable for their unpaid wages because it was their co-employer under its contract with the film's producer, Paradisio Media Corporation.  In its motion for summary judgment Avalon contended as to all causes of action no contract was ever formed between it and Paradisio because Paradisio failed to post a security deposit, a condition precedent to the formation of the contract.  As to the second cause of action for continuing wages under Labor Code section 203, Avalon made the additional argument any failure on its part to pay plaintiffs' wages was not willful.

            The trial court granted Avalon's motion for summary judgment on the ground no contract was formed between Avalon and Paradisio and, as to the cause of action for continuing wages under Labor Code section 203, on the independent ground Avalon did not willfully fail to pay plaintiffs' wages.[1]  The court also rejected plaintiffs' arguments Avalon was estopped from denying it was plaintiffs' co-employer and plaintiffs had an independent employment contract with Avalon.  Plaintiffs filed a timely appeal from the subsequent judgment. 

            We conclude a contract was formed between Avalon and Paradisio; therefore, we need not reach plaintiffs' other grounds for reversing the judgment.

FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS BELOW

            The relevant facts are undisputed.

            Paradisio undertook to make a movie about the life of former heavyweight champion, Sonny Liston. 

            During April and May 2004 Paradisio hired a production team which included the plaintiffs in this action.  Paradisio hired plaintiff Sharon Craig as production accountant.  One of Craig's first actions was to contact Avalon to provide production services including payroll for the production team.  Avalon informed Craig that unless Paradisio had a completion bond in place â€