Juan Pablo Orquiza v. Michael Bello

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JUAN PABLO ORQUIZA;
MAXIMINO BUENAVENTURA,
individually and on behalf of other
persons similarly situated,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
MICHAEL BELLO,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 13-16364
D.C. No. 2:11-cv-01374-JCM-
CWH
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
James C. Mahan, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted January 5, 2016
San Francisco, California
Before: WALLACE, KOZINSKI and O’SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judges.
Plaintiffs suggest that Bello was their “employer” for the purposes of the
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) because he determined their method of payment
and had the power to hire and fire employees. We question whether Bello had the
FILED
FEB 05 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

-- 1 of 2 --

page 2
power to hire and fire. The district court’s analysis of this question, which focused
on whether Bello actually hired or fired, is inapt. But, even if Bello did have this
power, our review of “the total employment situation and the economic realities of
the work relationship” compels the conclusion that Bello was not the plaintiffs’
employer. Bonnette v. Cal. Health & Welfare Agency, 704 F.2d 1465, 1470 (9th
Cir. 1983); see 29 U.S.C. § 203; Lambert v. Ackerley, 180 F.3d 997, 1012 (9th Cir.
1999) (en banc). Bello’s connection to the plaintiffs was too attenuated to
establish an employer/employee relationship.
The motion of the Southern Nevada Labor Management Cooperation
Committee et alius to become amici is GRANTED. The Clerk will file the brief.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --