GOONEWARDENE v. ADP

Amicus Curiae Brief of National Payroll Reporting Consortium and American Payroll Association

Cal.July 25, 2017

Case No. 8238941 SUPREME COURT FILED IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE | STATE OF CALIFORNIA JUL 25 2017 Jorge Navarrete Clerk SHARMALEE GOONEWARDENE,anindividual, Plaintiff and Appellant, Deputy Vv. ADP, LLC; ADP PAYROLL SERVICES, INC.; AD PROCESSING,LLC, Defendants and Respondents. On Review of a Decision of the California Court ofAppeal, Second Appellate District, Division Four, Case No. B267010 On Appeal from the Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case No. TC026406 Honorable William Barry, Judge Presiding APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMICI CURIAE BRIEF AND BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE NATIONAL PAYROLL REPORTING CONSORTIUM AND AMERICAN PAYROLL ASSOCIATIONIN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS AND RESPONDENTSADP, LLC; ADP PAYROLL SERVICES, INC.; AD PROCESSING, LLC GREINES, MARTIN, STEIN & RICHLAND LLP Alana H.Rotter, SBN 236666 arotter@gmsr.com Marc J. Poster, SBN 48493 mposter@gmsr.com 5900 Wilshire Boulevard, 12th Floor Los Angeles, California 90036 (310) 859-7811 / Fax (310) 276-5261 Attorneys for Amici Curiae National Payroll Reporting Consortium and American Payroll Association Case No. 8238941 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SHARMALEE GOONEWARDENE,anindividual, Plaintiff and Appellant, V. ADP, LLC; ADP PAYROLL SERVICES, INC.; AD PROCESSING,LLC, Defendants and Respondents. On Review of a Decision of the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Four, Case No. B267010 On Appeal from the Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case No. TC026406 Honorable William Barry, Judge Presiding APPLICATION FOR LEAVETO FILE AMICI CURIAE BRIEF AND BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE NATIONAL PAYROLL REPORTING CONSORTIUM AND AMERICAN PAYROLL ASSOCIATIONIN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS AND RESPONDENTSADP, LLC; ADP PAYROLL SERVICES, INC.; AD PROCESSING, LLC GREINES, MARTIN, STEIN & RICHLAND LLP Alana H.Rotter, SBN 236666 arotter@gmsr.com MarcJ. Poster, SBN 48493 mposter@gmsr.com 5900 Wilshire Boulevard, 12th Floor Los Angeles, California 90036 (310) 859-7811 / Fax (310) 276-5261 Attorneys for Amici Curiae National Payroll Reporting Consortium and American Payroll Association TABLE OF CONTENTS APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMICI CURIAE BRIEF AMICI CURIAE BRIEF OF THE NATIONAL PAYROLL REPORTING CONSORTIUM AND THE AMERICAN PAYROLL ASSOCIATION INTRODUCTION FACTS PERTINENT TO THIS AMICI CURIAE BRIEF LEGAL DISCUSSION I. If. Il. THE COURT SHOULD NOT ASSUME THAT PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS REFLECT HOW RESPONSIBLE PAYROLL SERVICE PROVIDERS ACTUALLY CONDUCT BUSINESS. IMPOSING THIRD-PARTY BENEFICIARY CONTRACT LIABILITY ON PAYROLL SERVICE PROVIDERS WOULDBE AN IMPERMISSIBLE END-RUN AROUND THE LEGISLATURE’S EXPRESSED INTENT THAT ONLY EMPLOYERS ARE LIABLE FOR WAGE-AND- HOUR VIOLATIONS. A. Only Employers Are Liable For Wage-And-Hour Violations. B. Independent Payroll Service Providers Are Not Employers. C. Courts Should Not Permit A Claim To Proceed Through The Back Door Where, As Here, The Legislature Has Closed The Front Door. GIVEN THE TRIAL COURT’S RECENT FINDING THAT PLAINTIFF DID NOT PROVE THAT SHE WAS UNDERPAID, THIS COURT SHOULD DISMISS REVIEW AND ORDER THAT THE COURT OF APPEAL’S OPINION IS NOT CITABLE. CERTIFICATION PROOF OF SERVICE PAGE oO o y n H D B D 11 11 12 13 16 19 20 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Arias v. Superior Court (2009) 46 Cal.4th 969 Astra USA, Inc. v. Santa Clara Cnty., Cal. (2011) 563 U.S. 110 Futrell v. Payday California, Inc. (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 1419 Grochowski v. Phoenix Const. (2d Cir. 2003) 318 F.3d 80 Martinez v. Combs (2010) 49 Cal.4th 35 Robles v. Agreserves, Inc. (E.D.Cal. 2016) 158 F.Supp.3d 952 Stencel Aero Engineering Corp. v. U.S. (1977) 431 U.S. 666 Transamerica Mortgage Advisors, Inc. v. Lewis (1979) 444 US. 11 STATUTES Civil Code, section: 1559 Labor Code,section: 238 558 558.1 1194 2699.3 RULES California Rules of Court, rule: 8.520(f) 8.1115(e)(3) PAGE 16 13, 14 10, 11, 12 14, 15 10, 11 11 13 13 15 11 12 11 16 4,5 18 APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMICI CURIAE BRIEF The National Payroll Reporting Consortium (NPRC)and the American Payroll Association (APA) apply for permission to file the attached Amici Curiae Brief pursuant to California Rule of Court 8.520(f). Description of Amici. NPRCis a non-profit association of payroll processing companies. Its member companiesprovide services to more than 1.4 million employers, which in turn have more than 50 million employees—more than one-third of the private sector workforce in the United States. APA is a non-profit association serving the interests of more than 20,000 payroll professionals in the United States. Two thousand three hundredof its membersphysically work in California, and more than double that number conduct business in the state. APA’s primary mission is to educate members andthe payroll industry about the best practices associated with paying America’s workers while complying with all applicable federal, state, and local laws. APA’s members perform payroll processing services for more than 17,000 employers and payroll service providers, whoin turn process the payrolls of an additional 1.5 million employers. Amici’s Position. Counsel for NPRC and APAcarefully reviewed the briefing before this Court and the Court ofAppeal, and thus are familiar with the arguments raised by the parties. This brief does not repeat arguments already made, but instead presents NPRC’s and APA’s own perspectives on the issues under review. Theattachedbrief will assist the Court in deciding the issues by providing a broader factual context within whichto analyze and develop Californialaw,i.e., from the perspective of the payroll service provider industry, which forms an importantsector of California’s economy. Amici Disclosure Statement. Pursuant to rule 8.520(f)(4), NPRC and APAstate that no party or counsel for a party has authored the proposedamicibrief in whole orin part. Further, no party or counselfor a party has made any monetary contribution to fund the preparation or submission of this proposed amici brief. Petitioner ADP is a member of NPRC,and some ofADP’s employees are members of APA,butthis brief reflects amici’s members’ collective interests. Accordingly, NPRC and APArespectfully requests that the Court consider their views in evaluating the arguments raised in this action by accepting the attachedbrief. AMICI CURIAE BRIEF OF THE NATIONAL PAYROLL REPORTING CONSORTIUM AND THE AMERICAN PAYROLL ASSOCIATION INTRODUCTION Amici curiae National Payroll Reporting Consortium (NPRC) and American Payroll Association (APA) are non-profit associations dedicated to serving the payroll processing service industry. NPRC’s member companies, and the APA’s members, collectively provide payroll and related services for more than 1.5 million employers, which in turn have more than 50 million employees—morethan one-third of the private sector workforce in the United States. These services are vital to the efficient production of goods and services and paymentoftaxes. Wehave reviewedthe briefs filed by the parties. We believe we can materially assist the Court in deciding this appeal in three respects: First, we will emphasize that the facts alleged by the plaintiff in her proposed sixth amended complaint are far afield from the actual practices of responsible payroll service providers nationwide. We urge the Court not to paint with too broada liability brush in deciding the issues presented by the appeal. Second, wewill focus attention on the Court of Appeal’s ruling that an independent payroll processing service may be liable for an employer’s alleged violation of wage-and-hour lawsbased onplaintiff's theory that employeesare third-party beneficiaries of a contract for payroll services between employerandthe payroll service. Even the anomalous facts alleged in this case should not support such liability. It would open a liability door that the Legislature intentionally closed. Third, we will address ADP’s recent request for judicial notice of plaintiff's employer’s successful defense of almostall of plaintiff's wage- and-hourclaims. If plaintiff's direct employeris not liable, ADP surely would not be liable on a third-party beneficiary theory for the claims. There is no need to decide issues that are now almost entirely hypothetical. We will urge the Court to dismiss review and orderthat the poorly- reasoned Court of Appeal decision is notcitable. FACTS PERTINENT TO THIS AMICI CURIAE BRIEF Aspertinentto plaintiff's claim that she has standing to pursue a wage-and-hour claim as a third-party contract beneficiary, her proposed sixth amended complaint alleges that her employer, Altour, and Altour’s payroll service provider, ADP, had an oral contract for ADP to calculate payrolls, maintain employee records, offer legal advice, and provide other wage-related services for the benefit of Altour and its employees. The Court of Appeal ruled that plaintiff's allegations state a claim for unpaid wages against ADP under Civil Code section 1559. That statute provides in pertinent part that a “contract, made expressly for the benefit of a third person, may be enforced by him.” LEGAL DISCUSSION 1 THE COURT SHOULD NOT ASSUME THAT PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS REFLECT HOW RESPONSIBLE PAYROLL SERVICE PROVIDERS ACTUALLY CONDUCT BUSINESS. We urge the Court not to allow the odd facts of one case to make bad law for all cases. On a demurrer, of course, the Court must assumethat the facts alleged in the complaintare true. But, speaking on behalf ofpayroll service providers nationwide, we represent to the Court that the reality of the payroll service industry is quite different from what plaintiff has alleged here: ° Payroll service providers do not operate on oral agreements. They enter into written contracts that specify the mutualobligations of the employer and the payroll service. These agreements typically place limitations on the contractual relationship between employers and providers, and do not include obligations to employees. Moreover, many of these contracts expressly disclaim an intent to create third party beneficiaries.! ° Payroll service providers do not pay wagesto the employers’ employees. Payroll service providers are not payday lendersor insurers of ' Sample written agreements are easily found onthe Internet. One such example is ADP’s contract with the Judicial Council for payroll services to the California superior court, which is posted on the Judicial Council’s website and which includesa provision titled “No Third Party Beneficiaries.” (See www.courts.ca.gov/documents/Ipa-ADP.pdf.) their clients’ legal obligations. If an employer lacks the resources to pay whatis due, its employees have remediesprovided bystate labor laws and | regulations and by Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) representative actions. ° Payroll service providers do not evaluate employee performanceorhire and fire employees. ° Payroll service providers do not determine what hours an employee has worked, or authorize, suffer, or permit employees to work certain hours. Manyservice providers offer employee timekeeping systems to facilitate collection of hours ofservice, but do not oversee employee practices in the workplace. They depend on employers and the information that employers provide to perform their services. ° Payroll service providers do not assume responsibility for compliance with wage-and-hour laws. Nor could they, becausethey are not at the worksite, and thus notin a position to determine whether employees are accurately recording their time or whether workers should be classified as employees versus independent contractors. Again, they mustrely on employers to provide appropriate input. ° If problemsarise in the preparation of payrolls, employees do not lookfirst to the payroll service. Employees look to their employerand, subject to the terms of the employer-payroll service provider contract, the employer then looks to the payroll service provider. A judicial restructuring of these long-established relationships would disrupt the multi-billion-dollar payroll service industry without positive benefits. In most cases, even if the payroll services provider were found liable on the Court of Appeal’s new third-party beneficiary theory, the employee’s measure of recovery would be the sameasis already available in a Labor Codesuit against the employer—the unpaid wages for which the employeris ultimately responsible. (Martinez v. Combs (2010) 49 Cal.4th 35, 49; Futrell v. Payday California, Inc. (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 1419, 1432.) The enforcement mechanismsavailable against employers thus already protect employees and put the incentive for compliance whereit belongs: on employers. Moreover, this redundancy would comeat great systemic cost: Wage-and-hourlitigation is already prolific in California. Currently, those suits are between employeesand their employer. But under the Court of Appeal’s new rule, employees would inevitably suetheir employer’s payroll service along with the employer, seeking the same unpaid wages in the guise of contract or tort damages. Indeed, amici are already aware of at least one such suit. Wage-and-hour lawsuits would routinely implicate not only the employee’s relationship with the employer,butalso the employer’s relationship with its payroll service provider. That means an additionalparty, an extra area for discovery, additional motion practice, and longertrials. There wouldalso be a secondary layeroflitigation burdening the already-crowdedcourts, with payroll service providers seeking indemnification from the employers that are ultimately responsible for 10 paying employees as required by the Labor Code. It is counterproductive to impose such burdens whenthere are already numerous well-functioning mechanismsfor enforcing employers’ Labor Code obligations. Il. IMPOSING THIRD-PARTY BENEFICIARY CONTRACT LIABILITY ON PAYROLL SERVICE PROVIDERS WOULD BE AN IMPERMISSIBLE END-RUN AROUND THE LEGISLATURE’S EXPRESSED INTENT THAT ONLY EMPLOYERS ARE LIABLE FOR WAGE-AND-HOUR VIOLATIONS. A. Only Employers Are Liable For Wage-And-Hour Violations. Labor Codesection 558 authorizes civil penalties for wage and hour violations. But section 558 is reserved for administrative actions;it does not create a private causeof action. (Robles v. Agreserves, Inc. (E.D.Cal. 2016) 158 F.Supp.3d 952, 1006.) Likewise, Labor Code section 1194 authorizes employeesto recoverin a civil action unpaid wages, interest, and attorney fees andcosts. It too limits liability to employers, not third parties such as payroll service providers. (See Futrell v. Payday California, Inc., supra, 190 Cal.App.4th at p. 1428.) In short, “no generally applicable rule of law imposes on anyone other than an employer a duty to pay wages.” (Martinez v. Combs, supra, 49 Cal.4th at p. 49.) In 2016,after the conduct underlying this case, the Legislature authorized a limited private cause of action for wage andhourviolations. ii Labor Codesection 558.1, subdivision (a), provides that an employer“or other person” acting on behalf of an employer who causesa violation of wage-and-hour laws maybeliable for the violation. However, “other person”has a particular meaning. Subdivision (b) specifies that “other person”is “limited to a natural person whois an owner, director, officer, or managing agent of the employer, and the term ‘managing agent’ has the same meaning as in subdivision (b) of Section 3294 ofthe Civil Code.” B. Independent Payroll Service Providers Are Not Employers. A payroll service provider is not an employer ofthe employer’s employees. Payroll services do not control the day-to-day activities of employment, andplaintiff does not allege that they do in this case. (Futrell v. Payday California, Inc., supra, 190 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1430-1437.) Assuming Labor Code section 558.1 applied retrospectively to this case, payroll service providersstill would not qualify as employers because they are not “natural persons,” much less owners, officers, or managing agents of the employers they serve. In short, the Legislature has not authorized an employee’sprivate cause of action for wage-and-hour violations against non-employers. The employee’s remedy is against the employer through established administrative means and authorized PAGA lawsuits. 12 C. Courts Should Not Permit A Claim To Proceed Through The Back Door Where, As Here, The Legislature Has Closed The Front Door. Since, by statute, the Legislature has expressly limitedliability for an employer’s violation of wage-and-hour lawsto employers and natural persons who are among the employer’s management, surely the Legislature did not intend that independent payroll service providers—who are neither natural persons nor employer management—could nevertheless be liable. By endorsing a third-party beneficiary theory ofliability, the courts would be permitting exactly that. Butit is not the courts’ purview to passlawsthat the Legislature has not. It is an “elemental canon”ofstatutory construction that where a statute expressly provides a remedy, courts must be especially reluctant to provide additional remedies. (Transamerica Mortgage Advisors, Inc. v. Lewis (1979) 444 U.S. 11, 19.) To permita litigant to proceed in such circumstances “would beto judicially admit at the back door that which has beenlegislatively turned awayat the front door.” (Stencel Aero Engineering Corp. v. U. S. (1977) 431 U.S.666, 673.) The Supreme Court reiterated this point in a case analogousto this one, Astra USA, Inc. v. Santa Clara Cnty., Cal. (2011) 563 U.S. 110. In Astra, drug manufacturers entered into ceiling-price contracts with the federal governmentas a condition ofeligibility to receive payments under state Medicaid programs. Federal law provided administrative procedures 13 for remedying overchargesbut allowed noprivate cause of action to enforce the price ceilings. Healthcare facilities nevertheless sued drug manufacturers, alleging the manufacturers had overcharged for drugs in violation of the manufacturers’ contracts with the federal government. The facilities contended that they could sue as third-party beneficiaries of those contracts. The Supreme Court disagreed. It dismissed the suit, recognizing it for what it was: an attempted end-run aroundthelackofa private right of action. The Court observed that the suit was “in essencea suit to enforce the statuteitself,” and that allowing it would “render[] meaningless” the absenceofa statutory private right of action. (Jd. at p. 118 [“The absence ofa private right to enforcethe statutory ceiling price obligations would be rendered meaninglessif[the facilities] could overcome that obstacle by suing to enforce the contract’s ceiling price obligations instead”].) Astra relied on Grochowski v. Phoenix Const. (2d Cir. 2003) 318 F.3d 80, where employeesasserted claimsagainst their employer for failing to pay prevailing wages as required by the Davis-Bacon Act (DBA) and in violation of the employer’s agreementto pay prevailing wages as a condition of procuring federal construction contracts. The Second Circuit ruled there is no statutory private cause of action to enforce the DBA, and that the courts should not create one: 14 [P]laintiffs’ state-law claimsare indirect attemptsat privately enforcing the prevailing wage schedules contained in the DBA. Toallow a third-party private contract action aimed at enforcing those wage schedules would be “inconsistent with the underlying purposeofthe legislative scheme and would interfere with the implementation ofthat schemeto the same extent as would a cause ofaction directly underthe statute.” (Id. at p. 86.) So too here. An employee’s third-party beneficiary claim against the employer’s payroll service is an indirect attempt to enforce wage-and-hour laws contrary to the Legislative scheme. The absenceofstatutory liability for payroll service providers under the Labor Code would be meaninglessif employees could sue payroll service providers to enforce their employer’s alleged oral contract with the service provider. Amongother things, by litigating wage-and-hourclaims against payroll service providers instead of against actual employers, employees could short-circuit Labor Code provisions designed to let the State monitor and oversee employers accused of wage theft. For example, Labor Code section 238 requires an employer (not a payroll services provider) with an unpaid final judgment for nonpayment ofwagesto file a surety-backed bond with the Labor Commissioneras a condition of doing businessin the State. A judgmentagainstonly the payroll services provider would allow such an employer to continue to do business with impunity. Or, consider the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004. The Act’s purposeis to aid the State in enforcing the Labor Code by allowing employeesto sue their employer on the State’s behalf, and collect 15 a percentageofthecivil penalties for, e.g., wage-and-hour violations— provided the employeesfirst give notice of the violations to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency. (Lab. Code, § 2699.3; see Ariasv. Superior Court (2009) 46 Cal.4th 969, 980-981 [Legislature recognized State’s impending inability to enforceits labor lawseffectively, and so incentivized employeesto aid in enforcement].) That purposeis defeated if employees can sue the employer’s payroll services provider on a contract theory instead of suing the employer underthe Private Attorneys General Act. The Court should not open a door to such unnecessary and expensive third-party claims wherethe Legislature has closedit. IIL GIVEN THE TRIAL COURT’S RECENT FINDING THAT PLAINTIFF DID NOT PROVE THAT SHE WAS UNDERPAID, THIS COURT SHOULD DISMISS REVIEW AND ORDER THAT THE COURTOF APPEAL’S OPINION IS NOT CITABLE. | The appeal in this case was from anorder sustaining a demurrer. The Court of Appeal’s opinion thus assumedthat the complaint’s allegations were true. Recent developments, however, belie that assumption: Thetrial court recently ruled (in the context of deciding plaintiff's claims against her employer, Altour) that plaintiff failed to prove most of her allegations that she was underpaid. (ADP’s Requestfor Judicial Noticefiled June 20, 2017.) The court found that plaintiff worked 16 remotely and wasresponsible for reporting her ownhours, that she regularly did not report her overtime until weeks or monthsafter the fact, creating an “administrative nightmare,”that “errors in payment” amounted to only $6,143.76, and that the failure to pay was not willful or intentional. (Ibid.) Plaintiff's claims against ADPare based on the same alleged underpaymentsas her claims against her employer. The trial court’s finding that plaintiffdid not timely report her own overtime, and that the resulting underpayment was minimal and unintentional therefore presages that plaintiff's claims against ADP will fail on their merits, or result in at most a de minimis recovery even if employees were deemed to have standingto enforce their employer’s alleged contract with a payroll service provider. Thetrial court’s finding that plaintiff failed to prove the bulk of her underpaymentallegations also casts doubt on the complaint’s other allegations, including the improbable allegations about the nature of ADP’s relationship with her employer. 17 Far-fetched complaint allegations, and a plaintiff who failed to accurately report her own timeand couldproveat best a minimal, unintentional underpayment, are nobasis for creating a new causeofaction that will drag payroll service providers into wage-and-hourlitigation that until now has been limited to employees andtheir employer. In light of the trial court’s recentruling, this Court should dismiss review and orderthe Court of Appeal’s opinion non-citable before it causes further mischief. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(e)(3).) July 18, 2017 GREINES, MARTIN,STEIN & RICHLAND, LLP Alana H. Rotter Marc J. Poster By MWae \, Popt, CMarcJ. Poster Attorneys for Amici Curiae National Payroll Reporting Consortium and American Payroll Association 18 CERTIFICATION Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.204(c)(1), (c)(4), I certify that this APPLICATION FOR LEAVETO FILE AMICI CURIAE BRIEF AND BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAEcontains 3,060 words, not including the tables of contents and authorities, the caption page, signature blocks, or this Certification page. Date: July 18, 2017 Mare h. fe, MarcQ/ Poster 19 PROOF OF SERVICE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am overthe age of 18 and nota party to the within action; my business address is 5900 Wilshire Boulevard, 12th Floor, Los Angeles, California 90036. On July 19, 2017, I served the foregoing documentdescribed as: Application For Leave To File Amici Curiae Brief And Brief OfAmici Curiae National Payroll Reporting Consortium And American Payroll Association In Support Of Defendants And Respondents ADP, LLC; ADPPayroll Services, Inc.; AD Processing, LLC ontheparties in this action by serving: SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST By placing a true copy thereof enclosed in sealed envelopes addressed as above and delivering such envelopes: By Mail: I am “readily familiar” with this firm’s practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Under that practice, it would be deposited with United States Postal Service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at Los Angeles, California in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion ofparty served, service is presumedinvalidifpostal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than | day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit. Executed on July 19, 2017, at Los Angeles, California. I declare under penalty of perjury under the lawsofthe State of California that the foregoingis true and correct. Lfb ETrK Rebecca E. Nieto 20 SERVICE LIST Glen Robert Broemer, Esq. 135 West 225th Street, Apt. F Bronx, New York 10463 Attorney for Plaintiff and Appellant SHARMALEE GOONEWARDENE ThomasM.Peterson, Esq. Zachary S. Hill, Esq. Robert A. Lewis, Esq. Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP One MarketStreet, Spear Tower San Francisco, CA 94105 Attorneys for Defendant and Respondent ADP PAYROLL SERVICES,INC. Office of the Clerk California Court of Appeal Second Appellate District, Division Four 300 South Spring Street Second Floor, North Tower Los Angeles, CA 90013 Clerk for the Honorable William Barry Los Angeles Superior Court 111 North Hill Street Los Angeles, CA 90012 Stephanie Hamilton Borchers, Esq. Dowling Aaron Incorporated 8080 North Palm Avenue, 3rd Floor Fresno, CA 93711 Attorneys for Payroll People Inc.: Pub/Depublication Requestor 21