of the considerations articulated by the Morillion and Rutti courts regarding employer control pull in opposite directions in this case. Although Plaintiff was not required to home-start, when he elected to do so Defendant’s Vehicle Policy prevented him from effectively using the time for his own purposes including using his cell phone, “dropping] of [his] children at school, stop[ping] for breakfast before work, or run[ning] other errands requiring use of a car.” Morillion, 22 Cal.4th at 587, 94 Cal.Rptr.2d 3, 995 P.2d 139; Rutti, 596 F.3d at 1061-1062; see Vehicle Policy. Further, Plaintiff was required to keep his company issued phone turned on and remain on call “to answer calls from the company dispatcher.” Rutti, 596 F.3d at 1061-1062; See Timekeeping , 38 Cal.Rptr.3d 693 (2006) (<HOLDING>). See also Armenta v. Osmose, Inc., 135
holding that a  15 lien did not apply because that section does not require reimbursement for an injury not compensable under c 152 holding that time was not compensable where the employer provided but did not require use of a shuttle holding that travel time is fully compensable holding that an injury occurring in a parking lot which was leased but not controlled by an employer was compensable because the employer instructed its employees to park in that lot holding that commute time in company vehicle  even where use of the vehicle was restricted nonpersonal uses was not compensable because it was optional