Opinion
Page 372a
138 Cal.App.4th 372a __ Cal.Rptr.3d __ ROBERT A. JONES, as Acting Labor Commissioner, etc., et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. WILLIAM S. GREGORY, Defendant and Appellant. G030347 California Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Third Division April 13, 2006Super. Ct. No. 00CC10286
ORDER MODIFYING OPINION AND DENYING PETITION FOR REHEARING; NO CHANGE IN JUDGMENT
ARONSON, J.
It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on March 14, 2006 (137 Cal.App.4th 798; 40 Cal.Rptr.3d 581), be modified as follows:
1. Page 10 [137 Cal.App.4th 806, advance report], delete the last sentence of the first full paragraph, beginning with “But the Supreme Court specified . . .” and ending with “cause of action in judicial proceedings” and substitute the following new sentences:
A plain reading of this language reveals no intent to make substantive changes to the Labor Code by importing IWC orders in whole or in part. (See Reynolds, supra, 36 Cal.4th at p. 1086 [“The best indicator of . . . intent is the language of the provision itself”].) The Supreme Court described the “special statutory scheme codified in sections 98 to 98.8” in procedural terms noting, for example, its provision for administrative relief in Berman hearings (Reynolds, supra, 36 Cal.4th at p. 1084). While section 98.3 authorizes the Labor Commissioner to prosecute civil actions in addition to pursuing administrative relief, nothing in section 98.3 purports to modify the substantive terms of the Labor Code.
2. Page 11 [137 Cal.App.4th 806], add a new sentence at the top of the page following the quotation and citation ending “‘it would have more clearly manifested that intent.’ (Id. at p. 1087.)” The added new sentence shall read:
Put simply, section 98.3 does not engraft Wage Order No. 4’s “exercises control” language onto the code provisions cited in plaintiffs’ complaint.
3. Page 12 [137 Cal.App.4th 807], delete “Labor Code” in subheading “3.” at the top of the page.
4. Page 14, lines 7 and 8 of footnote 11 [137 Cal.App.4th 809], delete the italics in “a section of this chapter or any provision regulating hours and
Page 372b
days of work” and on page 15, line 6, also of footnote 11, delete “(Italics added.)” and delete the last sentence of the footnote, beginning “As we discuss below . . . .”
5. Page 15 [137 Cal.App.4th 810], line 4 of the second sentence of the first full paragraph, delete the italics in “unpaid overtime wages” and also, on line 9, delete “italics added” from the citation.
6. Page 16 [137 Cal.App.4th 810], line 5 of the first sentence of the first full paragraph, delete the italics in “nonpayment of overtime wages” and on the last line, delete “italics added” from the citation.
7. Page 16 [137 Cal.App.4th 810-811], delete the second sentence of the second full paragraph, beginning “Section 558 may afford a remedy . . .” and ending “unreimbursed business expenses at issue here.”
These modifications do not change the judgment. The petition for rehearing is DENIED.
WE CONCUR: O’LEARY, ACTING P. J., FYBEL, J.