On Jan. 20, 2010, plaintiff Angel Zepeda, 53, a day porter for DMS Facility Services, was stationed at a plant in El Monte that was owned and operated by Sargent Fletcher Inc. While Zepeda and a co-worker, Daniel Rodriguez, were performing their work as janitors and cleaners, they were asked by Gilbert Tanon, the maintenance manager at Sargent Fletcher, to go up to the loft and move a heavy desk onto a pallet that was held at loft level by a forklift. As a result, Zepeda and Rodriguez went up to the loft and noticed that the pallet was located in an open area where a 5-foot section of the 42-inch guardrail surrounding the loft was missing. They also noticed some furniture dollies in the area and decided to use them to roll the desk horizontally to the pallet. However, because the bottom part of the guardrail, a 2×4, was still nailed to the loft floor, Zepeda and Rodriguez decided to lift up the front desk and kick out the front dolly while pushing the desk onto the pallet, but while they were crouching on either side of the desk, attempting to lift it, the desk suddenly moved. As a result, Zepeda fell from the loft and struck his head on the concrete floor 9 feet below. Angel Zepeda’s sister, Juana Zepeda, acting as her brother’s guardian ad litem, sued Sargent Fletcher Inc.; Tanon; a staffing agency, Personnel Plus Inc.; a subcontractor, Stockmar Industrial Inc., which was doing business as Elite Craftsman Inc.; Stockmar’s employee, Ricardo Gurubel; and FR Acquisitions Inc. and Cobham PLC., as other names for Sargent Fletcher. Sargent Fletcher, Personnel Plus and Tanon subsequently brought cross-claims against Stockmar and Gurubel, as well as third-party claims against DMS Facility Services Inc. and Rodriguez. Stockmar and Gurubel were ultimately dismissed from both Zepeda’s case and the cross-claim. Thus, Zepeda’s claims continued against Sargent Fletcher (and its other names), Tanon and Personnel Plus only. Sargent Fletcher filed a motion for summary judgment, claiming that Zepeda was a special employee under its control. It alleged that as its employee, Zepeda couldn’t sue because workers’ compensation would apply. However, the motion was denied. Sargent Fletcher then filed a writ, which was opposed by Zepeda and ultimately denied by the Second Appellate District Court. It then claimed that it was not liable for Zepeda because he was an independent contractor and that, under Privette v. Superior Court, it cannot be assigned liability based on the fault of a subcontractor employer, absent proof of its own independent fault. The matter then continued to mediation. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that while it was common for Tanon to assign cleaning tasks to Zepeda and Rodriguez, asking them to move a heavy desk in the loft was outside the scope of their work, per a 1997 Janitorial Service Contract between Sargent Fletcher and DMS. Thus, counsel contended that Tanon was negligent for never giving Zepeda and Rodriguez any directions, instructions or supervision, and left the means of moving the desk to them, even though moving the desk was outside the scope of their work. In addition, plaintiff’s counsel contended that because the guardrail was missing in the loft, Sargent Fletcher and Tanon affirmatively contributed to causing Zepeda’s by failing to properly repair and/or maintain the guardrail, creating a dangerous and defective condition. Plaintiff’s counsel asserted that even though Personnel Plus, a staffing agency, was technically Tanon’s employer and was vicariously responsible for Tanon’s negligent conduct, there was overwhelming evidence to suggest that Tanon was also an employee or agent of Sargent Fletcher on the subject date of the accident. Counsel contended that Tanon continued to have the same responsibilities and same rate of pay from Sargent Fletcher at the time of the accident as he did before the incident. Counsel further contended that there were numerous writings between Tanon and Sargent Fletcher that established that Sargent Fletcher was in control of Tanon’s activities at the time of Zepeda’s accident. Tanon claimed that he previously worked for Sargent Fletcher, but that a few weeks before the accident, he became an employee of Personnel Plus, who then had him work at Sargent Fletcher’s facility. He also claimed that he had asked permission from DMS to use Zepeda and Rodriguez to move this desk. However, Tanon was impeached and later changed his answer. Sargent Fletcher claimed that Zepeda and Rodriguez were at fault for being careless and negligent for working near the 9-foot precipice, which was an obvious dangerous condition. It also claimed that Zepeda and Rodriguez stood the desk up vertically. In addition, Sargent Fletcher claimed that Tanon was not its agent or employee on the subject date of the accident. It asserted that the Sargent Fletcher plant in El Monte was being decommissioned and that Tanon was let go three weeks before the subject accident and was merely working at the plaint as an independent contractor hired through Personnel Plus. Thus, it claimed that Personnel Plus was technically Tanon’s employer and was vicariously responsible for Tanon’s negligent conduct. Rodriguez denied that he and Zepeda stood the desk up vertically. According to plaintiff’s counsel, Tanon took photographs of the desk after the accident and sent them to Sargent Fletcher’s home office, but Sargent Fletcher claimed the photographs were lost or destroyed., Zepeda sustained multiple skull fractures, resulting in brain bleeds. He subsequently underwent surgery to evacuate the subdural hematomas on Jan. 20, 2010. However, he sustained a residual brain injury with cognitive and psychological deficits. Zepeda claimed he suffers from memory loss from the time of the accident and current events. He also claimed that becomes confused and aggressive, as a result. Thus, Zepeda needs supervision because of his behavioral issues and judgmental deficits, and that this supervision is provided at Casa Colina Centers for Rehabilitation in Pomona. However, Zepeda is able to work three days a week at the rehabilitation center, under direct supervision. His sister claimed that working is now the core of her brother’s existence and that he is unable to drive a car. Thus, on behalf of her brother, Zepeda’s sister sought recovery of $712,000 in past medical costs, paid by the worker’s compensation carrier and intervening plaintiff, and $2 million in future medical costs, as well as recovery of damages for Zepeda’s past and future pain and suffering.