happens to depart from, or return to, his home instead of some other location.” Id. at 1062 (citing Morillion, 22 Cal.4th at 587, 94 Cal.Rptr.2d 3, 995 P.2d 139). However, the Ninth Circuit gave special emphasis to the fact that, dining the uncompensated commute, the plaintiff “was required to drive the company vehicle .... ” Id. at 1061 (emphasis original). As a result of the defendant’s mandatory vehicle policy, the plaintiff “could not stop off for personal errands, could not take passengers, was required to drive the vehicle directly from home to his job and back, and could not use his cell phone while driving except that he had to keep his phone on to answer calls from the company dispatcher.” Id. at 1061-1062 (emphasis original). Severa th 314, 317, 324, 37 Cal.Rptr.3d 460 (2005) (<HOLDING>). As noted, in the instant case, Defendant did
holding that commute time in company vehicle  even where use of the vehicle was restricted nonpersonal uses was not compensable because it was optional holding that time was compensable where the crew was required to travel in the employers vehicle to job sites holding that travel time is fully compensable holding that time was not compensable where the employer provided but did not require use of a shuttle holding that plaintiff who slipped and fell on ice while securing cars on his employers motor vehicle carrier preparing to travel was very close to the vehicle and engaged in a task related to the vehicle and therefore was an occupier of a motor vehicle