In 2009, plaintiffs Guillermo Mendez, Jose Mendez, Francisco Mendez and Juana Mendez, all janitors, were working with their father, a non-party, at a county of Ventura facility on an account held by Kelly Cleaning & Supplies Inc. The Mendez siblings and their father worked under different business names and were hired by Kelly Cleaning & Supplies Inc., which utilized the services of over 100 nighttime janitorial crews. The father was ultimately bitten by a police dog engaging in training exercises in 2009. As a result, he filed a claim for personal against the county. However, it was learned that the father did not have the proper background check and security badge that the county required for all personnel entering its facilities at night. As a result, he was asked to withdraw his claim. When he refused, Kelly Cleaning alleged that the county insisted that it remove all of the Mendez family members from all of the Kelly Cleaning accounts with the county. Thus, Kelly Cleaning terminated all the Mendez siblings. Guillermo, Jose, Francisco and Juana Mendez sued Kelly Cleaning and its owner, Margo Kelly, for unfair business practices as a result of wage and hour violations. The Mendez siblings claimed that they all worked under different business names for Kelly Cleaning & Supplies Inc. Thus, they claimed that they were employees of Margo Kelly and Kelly Cleaning, making them entitled to the rights afforded to employees under California law. They also claimed that they were misclassified as independent contractors. The Mendez siblings alleged that they performed routine manual labor that required no specific skill or oversight, often at the same job site for decades; were required to purchase cleaning chemicals and supplies from Kelly Cleaning; were required to wear Kelly Cleaning uniforms; were not providing cleaning services for anyone other than Kelly Cleaning; and were not allowed to discuss pricing with customers of Kelly Cleaning. Further, the plaintiffs asserted that they did not provide Kelly Cleaning with bids for cleaning jobs, but, instead, they were told by Kelly Cleaning how much they would be paid per job. Finally, the siblings claimed that Kelly Cleaning represented to the public that its janitorial service providers were employees, covered under Kelly’s workers’ compensation insurance policy. Kelly claimed that her company, Kelly Cleaning, had no nighttime janitorial employees, only independent contractors. She alleged that the company had daytime janitorial employees that performed specialized cleaning services, such as Oriental rug cleaning and construction clean-up, while all standard janitorial work was performed by independent contractors. She also claimed that the county of Ventura made her terminate Kelly Cleaning’s contracts with the plaintiffs due to their father not having the proper background check and security badge, as well as refusing to withdraw his claim. Defense counsel contended that the plaintiffs obtained business licenses, signed contracts acknowledging their independent contractor relationship with Kelly Cleaning, and performed work on Kelly Cleaning’s accounts for more than a decade. Thus, counsel argued that the plaintiffs were properly classified as independent contractors and were correctly paid for all work performed., The trial was bifurcated to determine whether the plaintiffs were properly classified as independent contractors. Thus, damages were not before the court. Guillermo, Jose, Francisco and Juana Mendez sought recovery of unspecified damages as a result of their termination.