Plaintiffs Julio Pantoja and Ismael Aquino worked as laborers for Daniel Brent, owner of Brent Landscaping until May 2011. Pantoja worked for Brent from January 2008 until May 16, 2011, while Aquino worked from May 2010 until May 9, 2011. They each claimed that despite working over eight hours per day, Brent failed to pay them overtime wages or compensate them for all the hours they worked. They also claimed that Brent failed to pay them interest on the unpaid wages. In addition, they claimed that Brent failed to provide them itemized wage statements, proper safety equipment, meal breaks and rest periods. Thus, Pantoja and Aquino sued Brent, individually and doing business as Brent Landscaping, for statutory violations of California’s Labor Code. Aquino’s claims were dismissed without prejudice prior to trial. Thus, the matter proceeded to a bench trial on only Pantoja’s claims against Brent. Brent claimed that Pantoja was an independent contractor who agreed to supply his own tools and equipment. He also claimed that as an independent contractor, Pantoja was not entitled to recover wages for any time over his eight-hour day in which he was traveling, eating or performing any other activities that were preliminary to or postliminary to his principal work activities, pursuant to the “Portal-to-Portal” doctrine. In addition, Brent claimed that Pantoja was not entitled to recover any amount for the failure to provide wage statements because it was an error made in good faith., Pantoja sought recovery of compensatory damages, including recovery for unpaid wages, wages earned and due, unpaid overtime wages, interest on any unpaid wages and/or overtime compensation, and statutory and civil penalties under the Labor Code, Industrial Welfare Commission and Division of Labor Standards Enforcement. In addition, he sought recovery of attorney fees and costs.