With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 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

A: 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
B: holding that a  15 lien did not apply because that section does not require reimbursement for an injury not compensable under c 152
C: holding that travel time is fully compensable
D: holding that time was not compensable where the employer provided but did not require use of a shuttle
D.