The law against preliminary injunctions restricting speech is nothing short of brutal:

“The right to free speech is … one of the cornerstones of our society,” and is protected under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and under an “even broader” provision of the California Constitution. (Hurvitz v. Hoefflin (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 1232, 1241, 101 Cal.Rptr.2d 558; see Cal. Const., art. I, § 2, subd. (a).) An injunction that forbids a citizen from speaking in advance of the time the communication is to occur is known as a “prior restraint.” (DVD Copy, supra, 31 Cal.4th at p. 886, 4 Cal.Rptr.3d 69, 75 P.3d 1; Hurvitz v. Hoefflin, supra, 84 Cal.App.4th at p. 1241, 101 Cal.Rptr.2d 558.) A prior restraint is “ ‘the most serious and the least tolerable infringement on First Amendment  *1167 rights.’ ” (DVD Copy, supra, 31 Cal.4th at p. 886, 4 Cal.Rptr.3d 69, 75 P.3d 1; Near v. Minnesota (1931) 283 U.S. 697, 713, 51 S.Ct. 625, 75 L.Ed. 1357.) Prior restraints are highly disfavored and presumptively violate the First Amendment. (Maggi v. Superior Court (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 1218, 1225, 15 Cal.Rptr.3d 161; Hurvitz v. Hoefflin, supra, 84 Cal.App.4th at p. 1241, 101 Cal.Rptr.2d 558.) This is true even when the speech is expected to be of the type that is not constitutionally protected. (See Near v. Minnesota, supra, 283 U.S. at pp. 704–705, 51 S.Ct. 625 [rejecting restraint on publication of any periodical containing “malicious, scandalous and defamatory” matter].)67 To establish a valid prior restraint under the federal Constitution, a proponent has a heavy burden to show the countervailing interest is compelling, the prior restraint is necessary and would be effective in promoting this interest, and less extreme measures are unavailable. (See Hobbs v. County of Westchester (2d Cir.2005) 397 F.3d 133, 149; see also Nebraska Press Assn. v. Stuart (1976) 427 U.S. 539, 562–568, 96 S.Ct. 2791, 49 L.Ed.2d 683.) Further, any permissible order “must be couched in the narrowest terms that will accomplish the pin-pointed objective permitted by constitutional mandate and the essential needs of the public order….” (Carroll v. Princess Anne (1968) 393 U.S. 175, 183–184, 89 S.Ct. 347, 21 L.Ed.2d 325.)89 Even if an injunction does not impermissibly constitute a prior restraint, the injunction must be sufficiently precise to provide “a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice that his contemplated conduct is forbidden.” (United States v. Harriss (1954) 347 U.S. 612, 617, 74 S.Ct. 808, 98 L.Ed. 989; see also People ex rel. Gallo v. Acuna (1997) 14 Cal.4th 1090, 1115, 60 Cal.Rptr.2d 277, 929 P.2d 596.) An injunction is unconstitutionally vague if it does not clearly define the persons protected and the conduct prohibited.

Evans v. Evans, 162 Cal. App. 4th 1157, 1166-67, 76 Cal. Rptr. 3d 859, 867 (2008)

Under the Contractors’ State Licensing Law, “no person engaged in the business or acting in the capacity of a contractor, may bring or maintain any action, or recover in law or equity in any action, in any court of this state for the collection of compensation for the performance of any act or contract where a license is required by this chapter…”  Further, “A person who utilizes the services of an unlicensed contractor may bring an action in any court of competent jurisdiction in this state to recover all compensation paid to the unlicensed contractor for performance of any act or contract.”

Being able to claw back fees paid to someone that has done the work may seem like a draconian rule.  California Courts have said, however, regardless of the equities, section 7031 bars all actions, however they are characterized, which effectively seek “compensation” for illegal unlicensed contract work. (Lewis & Queen, 48 Cal.2d at pp. 150-152, 308 P.2d 713.)  Thus, an unlicensed contractor cannot recover either for the agreed contract price or for the reasonable value of labor and materials.  (See Davis Co. v. Superior Court (1969) 1 Cal.App.3d 156, 159, 81 Cal.Rptr. 453; Grant v. Weatherholt (1954) 123 Cal.App.2d 34, 41-42, 266 P.2d 185.)  The statutory prohibition operates where the person for whom the work was performed knew the contractor was unlicensed.  (Pickens, 269 Cal.App.2d at p. 302, 74 Cal.Rptr. 788; Cash v. Blackett (1948) 87 Cal.App.2d 233, 196 P.2d 585.)  The statutory prohibition even operates where the person for whom the work was performed engaged in fraud.  (Hydrotech Systems, Ltd. v. Oasis Waterpark (1991) 52 Cal.3d 988, 803 P.2d 370.

The appellate court in Pacific Custom Pools, Inc. v. Turner Construction Co. (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th at p. 1262, 94 Cal.Rptr.2d 756, stated the rule and then provided its explanation for the basis thereof as follows.  “ ‘Because of the strength and clarity of this policy, it is well settled that section 7031 applies despite injustice to the unlicensed contractor. “Section 7031 represents a legislative determination that the importance of deterring unlicensed persons from engaging in the contracting business outweighs any harshness between the parties, and that such deterrence can best be realized by denying violators the right to maintain any action for compensation in the courts of this state.” ‘ “ (79 Cal.App.4th at p. 1261, 94 Cal.Rptr.2d 756; citations omitted.

Whether a worker is an independent contractor or an employee largely turns on whether the employer “has the right to control the manner and means by which the worker accomplishes the work.”  Estrada v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., 154 Cal. App. 4th 1, 10 (2007); see Cal. Lab. Code § 3353 (defining independent contractor as “any person who renders service for a specified recompense for a specified result, under the control of his principal as to the result of his work only and not as to the means by which such result is accomplished”); S.G. Borello & Sons, Inc. v. Department of Indus. Relations, 48 Cal. 3d 341, 350 (1989) (noting that “[the] principal test of an employment relationship is whether the person to whom service is rendered has the right to control the manner and means of accomplishing the result desired”); see also In re Brown, 743 F.2d 664, 667 (9th Cir. 1984) (stating that, under California law, “the most significant factor is the right to control the means by which the work is accomplished”).  Even the trial court in our case agreed that this factor is the “most significant question in the independent contractor/employee determination.”  (6 AA at 1728.)

“While . . . the right to control work details is the ‘most important’ or ‘most significant’ consideration, the authorities also endorse several ‘secondary’ indicia of the nature of a service relationship.”  S.G. Borello & Sons, Inc., 48 Cal. 3d at 350.  Those “secondary indicia” “have been derived principally from the Restatement Second of Agency.”  Id. at 351.  They include,

(1) whether the worker is engaged in a distinct occupation or business, (2) whether, considering the kind of occupation and locality, the work is usually done under the principal’s direction or by a specialist without supervision, (3) the skill required, (4) whether the principal or worker supplies the instrumentalities, tools, and place of work, (5) the length of time for which the services are to be performed, (6) the method of payment, whether by time or by job, (7) whether the work is part of the principal’s regular business, and (8) whether the parties believe they are creating an employer-employee relationship.

Estrada, 154 Cal. App. 4th at 10; see Antelope Valley Press, 162 Cal. App. 4th at 852-53.  Additionally, S.G. Borello & Sons Inc. also

noted with approval the six-factor test developed by other jurisdictions [which b]esides the right to control the work . . . include[s] (1) the alleged employee’s opportunity for profit or loss depending on his managerial skill; (2) the alleged employee’s investment in equipment or materials required for his task, or his employment of helpers; (3) whether the service rendered requires a special skill; (4) the degree of permanence of the working relationship; and (5) whether the service rendered is an integral part of the alleged employer’s business.

Bowman v. Wyatt, 186 Cal. App. 4th 286, 301 (2010) (internal quotation marks omitted) (citing S.G. Borello & Sons, Inc., 48 Cal. 3d at 354–55).  If these were not enough criteria to consider, the courts have found that the “the right to discharge at will without cause” is yet another “secondary factor . . . constituting strong evidence in support of an employment relationship” and against a contractor relationship.  Angelotti v. Walt Disney Co., 192 Cal. App. 4th 1394, 1404 (2011); see S.G. Borello & Sons, Inc., 48 Cal. 3d at 350; Kowalski v. Shell Oil Co., 23 Cal. 3d 168, 177 (1979).  Failure to consider these secondary factors is considered error.  See Bowman, 186 Cal. App. at 303-304 (holding that CACI jury instruction did not articulate a “correct statement of the law” because it failed to “instruct the jury that it must weigh all of [the secondary] factors”); Messenger Courier Assn. of Americas v. Cal. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd.,175 Cal. App. 4th 1074, 1095 (2009).

The fact that there is a contract between the parties that characterizes the relationship between the Parties as contractor/client or employee/employer is of limited relevance in determining a worker’s proper classification under law:  “The agreement characterizing the relationship as one of client – independent contractor will be ignored if the parties, by their actual conduct, act like employer – employee.”  Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A., Inc. v. Superior Court, 220 Cal. App. 3d 864, 877 (1990) (internal quotations omitted); see Tieberg v. Unemployment Ins. App. Bd., 2 Cal. 3d 943, 952 (1970).  “Indeed, attempts to conceal employment by formal documents purporting to create other relationships have led the courts to disregard such terms whenever the acts and declarations of the parties are inconsistent therewith.”  Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A., Inc., 220 Cal. App. 3d at 877; see, e.g., Pacific Lbr. Co. v. Ind. Acc. Com., 22 Cal. 2d 410, 422 (1943); White v. Uniroyal, Inc., 155 Cal. App. 3d 1, 27 (1984); Bemis v. People, 109 Cal. App. 2d 253, 266 (1952); Lewis v. Constitution Life Co., 96 Cal. App. 2d 191, 194 (1950).  As a matter of law it is not particularly relevant what an agreement might say about labor classification between the parties.

“RLUIPA is the latest skirmish in a tug of war between Congress and the Supreme Court over the meaning and application of the Free Exercise Clause of the United States Constitution.” (Lennington,Thou Shalt Not Zone: The Overbroad Applications and Troubling Implications of RLUIPA’s Land Use Provisions (2006) 29 Seattle U. L.Rev. 805, 806–807.) Adopted in response to the Supreme Court’s partial invalidation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, title 42 United States Code section 2000bb (RFRA), in City of Boerne v. Flores (1997) 521 U.S. 507 [117 S.Ct. 2157, 138 L.Ed.2d 624], RLUIPA applies to a government’s implementation of land use regulations so long as the government makes, or has in place procedures allowing it to make, “individualized assessments of the proposed uses for the property involved.” (42 U.S.C. § 2000cc (a)(2)(C).) If applicable, RLUIPA prohibits a government from implementing a land use regulation in a way that “imposes a substantial burden” on one’s “religious exercise” unless the burden satisfies strict scrutiny.⁸ In passing the Act, Congress intended to relax the requirement under First Amendment jurisprudence that the “religious exercise” be central to the individual’s religion. Under RLUIPA, free exercise includes “any exercise of religion, whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief.” (42 U.S.C. § 2000cc–5(7)(A).) *118 Particularly relevant to our inquiry here, RLUIPA provides that “[t]he use, building, or conversion of real property for the purpose of religious exercise shall be considered to be religious exercise of the person or entity that uses or intends to use the property for that purpose.” (42 U.S.C. § 2000cc–5(7)(B).)

A RLUIPA substantial burden analysis proceeds in sequential steps.  First we look, as a threshold question, to determine if the government has made an “individualized assessment” in its implementation of laws affecting land.  42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(a)(2)(C).  Second, “the plaintiff must demonstrate that a government action has imposed a substantial burden on the plaintiff’s religious exercise.”  Int’l Church of Foursquare Gospel v. City of San Leandro, 673 F.3d 1059, 1066 (9^th Cir. 2011) [hereinafter Foursquare Gospel]; see 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(a)(1) (providing that a land-use regulation “impos[ing] a substantial burden on the religious exercise of a . . . religious assembly or institution” is unlawful).  Finally, “once the plaintiff has shown a substantial burden, the government must show that its action was the least restrictive means of further[ing] a compelling governmental interest.”  Id.

In the United Methodist Church case, we argued the pending demolition and CUP permits qualified for RLUIPA protection.  Courts have repeatedly held that a city’s “treatment of [a] Church’s [CUP] applications” which include a demolition permit “constitutes an ‘individualized assessment’” subject to RLUIPA.  Foursquare Gospel, 673 F.3d at 1066; see Guru Nanak, 456 F.3d at 987 (same); Acad. of Our Lady of Peace v. City of San Diego, 09-CV962 (WQH) (AJB), 2010 WL 1329014, at *10 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 1, 2010) (examining whether a CUP that included a demolition permit was subject to RLUIPA and “conclude[ing] that RLUIPA applies in this case”).

We further argued the second part of the test, a substantial burden existed because, as a consequence of a city’s denial of a CUP—a CUP which includes a demolition permit—the religious organization suffered the “ultimate burden on the use of the [affected] land,” the burden of effective non-use of that land, quoting:

The burden on the Church’s use of land in this case is not only substantial, but entire. By denying the conditional use permit, the City has effectively barred any use by the Church of the real property in question. This is not a case where the Church’s proposed use of land—equated with “religious exercise” by RLUIPA—is restricted in a minor or “unsubstantial” way (e.g., by limiting a building’s size or occupancy). Rather, the denial of the CUP bars the Church’s use altogether, thereby imposing the ultimate burden on the use of that land.

Elsinore Christian Ctr. v. City of Lake Elsinore, 291 F. Supp. 2d 1083, 1090 (C.D. Cal. 2003), reversed on other grounds, Elsinore Christian Ctr. v. City of Lake Elsinore, 197 Fed. Appx. 718, 719 (9^th Cir. 2006) (reversing the district court’s holding that RLUIPA was unconstitutional but affirming the district court’s holding that the City violated RLUIPA).

In 1963, the State of California enacted Government Code sections 25373 and 37361.  Section 25373 provides in pertinent part:

(b) The board may, by ordinance, provide special conditions or regulations for the protection, enhancement, perpetuation, or use of places, sites, buildings, structures, works of art and other objects having a special character or special historical or aesthetic interest or value.
§ 37361 is identical and applies to cities.

In enacting subsection (b), the State Legislature expressly granted to cities and counties broad powers to regulate and protect all kinds of structures.  (Cal. Govt. Code §§ 25737 and 37361.)

The broad power granted by subsection (b) encompasses not only landmarking but all manner of preservation.  In fact, the word “landmark” is not used.  (Cal. Govt. Code §§ 25737(b) and 37361(b).)

In 1994, by Assembly Bill No. 133, the broad powers granted to cities and counties by subsection (b) were expressly taken away from cities and counties with respect to noncommercial property held by religious organizations.  The Legislature amended both statutes to allow religiously affiliated organizations to exempt their noncommercial property (“exempt property”) from the placement of any condition, or any regulation, for the protection, enhancement, perpetuation, or use of said property.  Subsection (d) provides:

Subdivision (b) shall not apply to noncommercial property owned by any association or corporation that is religiously affiliated and not organized for private profit …

(Cal. Govt. Code § 25737(d).)

Thus, in 1963, the State of California expressly granted to local governments broad powers to regulate and protect all kinds of structures and, in 1994, expressly took that power away from local governments with respect to exempt property.  The result is that local governments are without power to place any “special conditions or regulations for the protection, enhancement, perpetuation, or use of places, sites, buildings, structures, works of art and other objects having a special character or special historical or aesthetic interest or value.”  (Cal. Govt. Code §§ 25737 and 37361.)

The California Supreme Court has discussed the purpose of the Government Code exemptions, which is to protect religious freedom:

An explanation of the purpose of the exemption subdivisions was included in Senate Bill No. 1185 (1993–1994 Reg. Sess.), the 1993 legislation, and in Assembly Bill No. 133 (1993–1994 Reg. Sess.), the 1994 bill (hereafter Assembly Bill No. 133), each of which, after noting that historic landmark restrictions were not related to or compelled by public health or safety concerns, stated: “Sections 1 and 2 of this act ensure the protection of religious freedom guaranteed by Section 4 of Article I of the California Constitution and by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.” (Stats.1993, ch. 419, § 7, p. 2388; see Stats.1994, ch. 1199, § 3 [substantially identical].)

East Bay Asian Local Dev. Corp. v. State of Cal., 24 Cal.4th 693, 702 (2000) (East Bay).

The legislative history is even more specific.  With respect to the Senate bill, Section 7 of Stats.1993, c. 419 (S.B.1185), provides:

“(a) The Legislature hereby finds and declares that Section 2 of this act addresses a matter of statewide interest and concern… (b) Sections 1 and 2 of this act ensure the protection of religious freedom guaranteed by Section 4 of Article I of the California Constitution and by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.”

(West’s Ann. Cal. Govt. Code § 25373.)

With respect to the Assembly bill, Section 3 of Stats.1994, c. 1199 (A.B.133), provides:

“Sections 1 and 2 of this act address a matter of statewide interest and concern…

Therefore, Sections 1 and 2 of this act ensure the protection of religious freedom guaranteed by Section 4 of Article I of the California Constitution, and by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.”

(West’s Ann. Cal. Govt. Code § 25373.)