Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

D is a payroll services provider. Since 2000, D's advertising and corporate statements have stated that it provides payroll-related services to employers and employees. D offers to ‘serve as an extension of [an employer's] payroll department and [to] take over all [the employer's] payroll tasks.’ D holds itself out as possessing specialized knowledge regarding the calculation of wages under applicable wage laws and regulations, and states that it ‘can save employer[s] money by calculating their payroll.’ D's website advertises its expertise in tracking employee work hours, determining wages, and preparing payrolls in accordance with applicable laws. According to the website, ADP provides “self-service tools” allowing employees to view their attendance, vacation benefits, and time card approvals. For Altour, D calculated payrolls, maintained employee records, offered legal advice, and provided other wage-related services for the benefit of Altour and its employees. P filed the initial complaint in the underlying proceeding against her former employer, Altour International, Inc. (Altour), for wrongful termination, breach of contract, violations of the Labor Code, and related causes of action. P alleged that Altour failed to pay the wages she was due under the Labor Code and applicable wage order and wrongfully terminated her when she brought this failure to Altour's attention. In an amended complaint, P included a single cause of action against D, a payroll company that provided payroll services to Altour. P alleged that D had engaged in unfair business practices under the unfair competition law based on its alleged failure to provide P with adequate documentation and records regarding her compensation. Eventually, the trial court entered a final order sustaining D's demurrer on all causes of action without leave to amend. The trial court subsequently entered a judgment dismissing P's action against D. P appealed. In analyzing the causes of action for negligent misrepresentation and negligence, the Court of Appeal found the allegations against D sufficient to support such tort causes of action, relying in part on its prior determination that P qualified as a third party beneficiary of the Altour/D contract. It reversed the trial court judgment “to the extent the trial court denied P leave to file an amended complaint asserting claims against D limited to breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation, and negligence.” D appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.