Brosterman v. Stewart Title
Published: Mar. 22, 2001 | Result Date: Jan. 26, 2001 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |Case number: EC029017 – $0
Judge
Court
L.A. Superior Burbank
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Defendant
Facts
On Dec. 1, 1988, plaintiff Julie Brosterman was hired by defendant Stewart Title of California, Inc. to work as a
salesperson. During the time that she was employed by Stewart, she was paid on commission. She resigned her
employment with Stewart on Aug. 5, 1997. Brosterman was never employed by defendant Stewart Title
Guaranty Company.
On March 13, 2000, Brosterman filed a complaint, claiming entitlement to reimbursement, pursuant to
California Labor Code Section 2802, for car expenses, travel expenses, toll charges, parking and expenses
related to her attendance at industry conventions and seminars.
The plaintiff sought reimbursement for all of the foregoing expenses which were allegedly incurred during her
nine years of employment at Stewart. The plaintiff sought the same award from Guaranty on the theory that
Stewart was its alter ego. While the plaintiff was employed by Stewart, she submitted monthly written expense
reports and was allegedly paid for the expenses that she claimed on those reports. According to defendant
Stewart, the plaintiff did not claim entitlement to the expenses which are the subject of her lawsuit at any time
before she resigned from Stewart.
Result
The plaintiffÆs original complaint was never served on defendants. The defendants demurred to plaintiffÆs first amended complaint and the demurrer was sustained with leave to amend. The plaintiff then filed a second amended complaint which defendants again demurred to. That demurrer was also sustained with leave to amend. The plaintiff filed a third amended complaint and defendants once again demurred to it. The defendantsÆ demurrers to plaintiffÆs third amended complaint were sustained without leave to amend. They were sustained on the ground that plaintiff admitted, in her original pleading, that she was not required by Stewart to spend the money she claimed to have spent but that she did so of her own volition to try to stimulate sales and thereby increase her commission income. According to the defendants, plaintiffÆs attempts, in subsequent pleadings, to contradict this admission could not rescue her claim against the defendants. The court further concluded that plaintiff did not and could not state facts sufficient to constitute any cause of action on an alter ego theory against Guaranty.
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390