Posts Tagged ‘California Supreme Court’
California, California Supreme Court, Fleetwood Enterprises, Supreme Court of the United States
In Costs on August 16, 2011 at 12:53 pm
Image via Wikipedia
Defendant United Parcel Service, Inc. prevailed against plaintiff employee on various wage and hour causes of action including failure to pay overtime and failure to provide breaks. Plancich v. United Parcel Service, Inc., — Cal. Rptr. 3d —-, 2011 WL 3506066, No. E050631 (4th Dist. Aug. 11, 2011). UPS won on all six counts, and the trial court awarded costs but then granted Plaintiff Plancich’s motion to strike costs. Id. *1. The Fourth District reversed the order granting the motion to strike costs, holding that a prevailing employer may recover costs in a wage suit.
Background
Plancich worked for UPS as an on-road supervisor. Id. He asserted in his complaint that he worked more than eight hours a day and more than 40 hours a week. Id. He also alleged that UPS misclassified him as exempt under the executive, administrative, or professional exemptions. Id. The jury found Plancich was an exempt employee. Id. As to the unfair competition cause of action, the trial court found in favor of UPS. Id. The trial court ordered that UPS recover its costs from Plancich, in an amount to be determined. Id.
After UPS filed its memorandum of costs in the amount of $38,387.20, Plancich filed a motion to strike and tax costs based on Earley v. Superior Court, 79 Cal. App. 4th 1420 (4th Dist. 2000). Read the rest of this entry »
Advanced Micro Devices, Business, California Supreme Court, Eric Paton, Human resources, Paid time off, Sabbatical, Trial court
In Class Actions, Vacation on August 15, 2011 at 6:50 am
Image by epSos.de via Flickr
California’s Sixth District Court of Appeal held that a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether eight-week leave was a sabbatical or regular vacation precluded summary judgment in former employee’s class action against the former employer. Paton v. Advanced Micro Devices, — Cal. Rptr. 3d —-, 2011 WL 3369346, No. H034618 (6th Dist. Aug. 5, 2011).
Background
Plaintiff Eric Paton sued defendant Advanced Micro Divices, Inc. on behalf of himself and a class of others, alleging that Defendant had failed to pay him for an eight-week sabbatical he earned but had not used when he retired. Id. *1 Salaried employees who served for seven years were eligible for an eight-week fully paid sabbatical. Id. Plaintiff argued that the sabbatical was extra vacation and, pursuant to Labor Code section 227.3, the employer could not require an employee to forfeit vacation pay. Id. Plaintiff cited Suastez v. Plastic Dress-Up Co., 31 Cal. 3d 774 (1982), to support his claim that the sabbatical had vested over the seven years he had worked for defendant and he was entitled to the pay when he resigned. Id. Read the rest of this entry »
Business, California Labor Code, California Supreme Court, Defendant, Government, J. B. Hunt, Merrill Lynch, New York Stock Exchange, Plaintiff, Superior court, Truck driver, United States, William Alsup
In Meal and Rest Breaks, Stay on October 11, 2010 at 6:56 am
The Northern District rejected defendant’s motion for stay of a meal and rest break action where the primary focus of complaint was unrelated to the break claims. Murphy v. J.B. Hunt Transport Services, Inc., No. C 10-01568 WHA, 2010 WL 3911786 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 5, 2010) (slip op.). Defendant J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc., moved to stay a case alleging three claims for discrimination and one claim for nonpayment of wages for regular meal-and-rest periods. Id. *1. Defendant’s stay motion sought a stay pending the resolution of a case pending before the California Supreme Court, Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court, 196 P.3d 216 (Oct. 22, 2008), in which the court will decide whether the California Labor Code requires employers to affirmatively ensure that employees take rest and meal breaks. Id.
The court recited the standard for a stay of federal court proceedings as follows:
The proponent of a stay bears the burden of establishing its need. Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 708 (1997). Read the rest of this entry »
Amicus curiae, Arnold Schwarzenegger, California, California Supreme Court, Carlos R. Moreno, Carol A. Corrigan, Carol Corrigan, Kathryn Mickle Werdegar, Marvin R. Baxter, Ming W. Chin, Professional Engineers in California Government, Ronald M. George
In Other Cases of Interest on October 6, 2010 at 10:15 pm
On Monday, the California Supreme Court held that the California “Legislature’s 2009 enactment of the revisions to the 2008 Budget Act operated to ratify the use of the two-day-a-month furlough program as a permissible means of achieving the reduction of state employee compensation mandated by the act.” Professional Engineers in California Government v. Schwarzenegger, No. S183411, — Cal.Rptr.3d —-, 2010 WL 3835132, *2 (Cal. Oct. 4, 2010). Accordingly, the Court concluded that the “2009 budget legislation validated the Governor’s furlough program here at issue, and rejected plaintiffs’ challenge to that program. Id.
On December 1, 2008 Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger declared a fiscal emergency, called the Legislature into special session, and submitted to the Legislature a comprehensive plan to address the budget problem. Id. *1. The Governor’s budget plan included, among many other cost-saving features, two proposed statutory provisions that would impose a mandatory one-day-a-month unpaid furlough of most state employees employed by the executive branch. Id. The Legislature later passed its own proposed comprehensive budget legislation, but the Legislature’s alternative plan did not include the Governor’s recommended furlough provision. Id. Read the rest of this entry »
Appeal, Arbitration, California Supreme Court, Contract, Federal Arbitration Act, Judge Kumar, Law, Legal Information, Paul Turner, Sandy R. Kriegler, United States, United States Supreme Court
In Arbitration, Class-wide Arbitration on October 4, 2010 at 8:55 am
The Second District compelled a class action plaintiff to arbitrate his individual claims in Maiorano v. Professional Community Management, Inc., No. B220127, 2010 WL 3786721 (Cal. Ct. App. 2d Dist. Sept. 30, 2010). Defendant, Professional Community Management, Inc., appealed from an order denying its petition to compel arbitration of a putative class action filed by plaintiff, Ray A. Maiorano. Id. *1. The Second District held that “based solely on the parties’ agreement, we conclude they cannot be compelled to arbitrate on a class basis”, but it directed the trial court to compel arbitration of plaintiff’s individual claims. Id. The court reasoned that the “presence of a provision limiting arbitration to individual rather than joined or representative claims did not present a basis upon which the trial court could conclude the present arbitration agreement was permeated by an unlawful purpose.” Id. *4.
Background
Plaintiff brought a class action complaint alleging violations of statutory meal and rest breaks, wage reporting and overtime requirements, and unlawful and unfair business practices. Id. *2. Plaintiff also asserted a cause of action for penalties under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004–Labor Code sections 2698 and 2699. Id. Defendant filed a petition to compel arbitration. The trial court denied defendant’s petition, ruling that: Read the rest of this entry »
California, California Supreme Court, Gentry, Law, Lawrence K. Karlton, Rent-A-Center, Stolt-Nielsen, Supreme Court, Supreme Court of the United States, United States, United States District Court
In Arbitration, Class-wide Arbitration on September 27, 2010 at 5:20 am
United States District Court for the Eastern District of California rejected defendant’s argument that Stolt-Nielson preempted Gentry, and the court held that a class-wide arbitration agreement was unenforceable as against an unpaid wage and overtime plaintiff. Mathias v. Rent-A-Center, Inc., Civ. No. S-10-1476 LKK/KJM, 2010 WL 3715059 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 15, 2010) (slip op.).
Background
Ryan Mathias (“Mathias” or “plaintiff”) was employed by Rent-A-Center, Inc. (“RAC” or “defendant”) as an Assistant Manager, a position that was classified as a non-exempt or hourly position. Id. *1. As a condition of employment, plaintiff executed an arbitration agreement (“Agreement”), which Agreement contained a class action waiver and excluded arbitration private attorney general actions. Id. Plaintiff filed a class action alleging eight claims arising from his employment with defendant, including claims for unpaid wages and overtime, unpaid rest and meal period premiums, and penalties arising from non-compliant wage statements under the California Labor Code and California Business and Professions Code. Id. Read the rest of this entry »
Breach of contract, California, California Supreme Court, Class action, Employment, Irma E. Gonzalez, Law, Michael Jordan, Supreme Court of the United States
In 23(b)(3) Class, Class Actions, Contract, Paystub, Uniform, Vacation, Wages on September 24, 2010 at 2:20 pm
The Southern District of California granted class certification in a vacation, uniform, paycheck, wage and contract class action. Lopez v. G.A.T. Airline Ground Support, Inc., No. 09cv2268-IEG(BGS), 2010 WL 3633177 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 13, 2010) (slip op.).
Background
Former employees of Defendant G.A.T. Airline Ground Support, Inc. (“GAT”) sued for systematic wage and hour violations in violation of federal and state law. Id. *1. GAT provides services to airlines, including ground transportation, aircraft maintenance, and cargo operations management. Id. The four named Plaintiffs are former ramp agents employed by GAT in California. Id. Read the rest of this entry »
California, California Supreme Court, Class action, Economic development, Hotel, Hyatt, Law, Lawsuit, Legal Information, Privacy, Radhika Sainath, Randy Renick, Real estate, Swimming pool, United States, Victor B. Kenton
In Class Discovery, Discovery, Opt-out on September 21, 2010 at 6:42 pm
The Central District granted plaintiff’s motion to compel disclosure of the name and contact information (full name, last known addresses and telephone numbers) for class members of a putative class action for unpaid commission wages. Celia Alvarez, et al. v. The Hyatt Regency Long Beach, et al., CV 09-04791-GAF (VBKx). According to the court, the class was defined as all non-exempt employees for the period commencing May 7, 2005. (Thank you to Radhika Sainath for alerting me to the decision.)
Defendants contended that the information was not relevant for class certification and invaded the privacy rights of the putative class. Plaintiffs offered to enter into a protective order and offer that the information be given to a third party who would send the class members an opt-out letter. Defendant rejected these proposal. Read the rest of this entry »
Break (work), California Supreme Court, Edward A. Ferns, Frank Y. Jackson, Fred Woods, Ian Herzog, Laurie D. Zelon, Law, Los Angeles, Los Angeles County California, Michael H. Fish, Paul R. Fine, Randy S. Grossman, Robert S. Brewer Jr., Scott A. Brooks, Stephen Glick, Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Supreme Court, Supreme Court of the United States, United States
In Meal and Rest Breaks on August 26, 2010 at 8:41 pm
While the California Supreme Court will resolve this issue shortly, in Brookler v. Radioshack Corp., B212893, 2010 WL 3341816 (Cal. Ct. App. 2d Dist. Aug. 26, 2010), an unpublished opinion issued today, the Second District Court of Appeal held that “Unless and until our Supreme Court holds otherwise, we agree with the analysis in Cicairos which held an employer’s obligation under the Labor Code and related wage orders is to do more than simply permit meal breaks in theory; it must also provide them as a practical matter.”
Morry Brookler filed a class action complaint against Radioshack for its alleged failure to provide employees with a meal period of not less than 30 minutes during a work period of more than five hours. Id. *1. The trial court certified the class. Radioshack filed a second motion for decertification after issuance of the opinion in Brinker, 165 Cal. App. 4th 25 which the trial court granted. The California Supreme Court granted review in Brinker and the matter is currently pending. Read the rest of this entry »
California Supreme Court, Cause of action, Central District of California, Exemption, FLSA, Judge Percy Anderson, Law, Morgan Stanley, Overtime, Remand, Supreme Court of the United States, Truth in Lending Act, UCL, United States, Wells Fargo Bank
In Federal Question Jurisdiction, FLSA, Remand on August 15, 2010 at 8:00 am
Photo by Bryan Maleszyk
Judge Percy Anderson of the Central District of California faced the question of whether basing a UCL claim partially on a violation of the FSLA creates federal jurisdiction. The Court held that it did not. The case is Williams, et al. v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. CV 10-4761 PA (PJWx), 2010 WL 3184248 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2010).
Plaintiffs’ alleged that defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (“Defendant”) misclassified them as exempt from overtime and failed to pay wages for overtime compensation.
Plaintiffs were employed by Defendant as “Home Mortgage Consultants” sometime between February 10, 2001 and the present. During that time, Plaintiffs were paid on a commission sales basis and were never paid any overtime or premium pay. On May 30, 2010, Plaintiffs brought this action against Defendant in the Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles, alleging (1) violation California Labor Code §§ 510 and 1198 for unpaid overtime; (2) violation of California Labor Code §§ 2800 and 2802 for unpaid business expenses; (3) violation California Labor Code §§ 201 and 202 for wages not timely paid upon termination; (4) violation California Labor Code § 204 for wages not timely paid during employment; (5) violation California Labor Code § 226(a) for non-compliant wage statements; and (6) violation of California Business & Professions Code §§ 17200, et seq.
Defendant filed a Notice of Removal on June 28, 2010, alleging federal question jurisdiction. Plaintiffs filed a motion to remand, maintaining that they have only alleged state law claims, and thus there is no basis for subject matter jurisdiction.
Defendant contended that Plaintiffs have effectively alleged a separate federal claim by alleging violation of the UCL based on violation of the FLSA.
Defendant is asking that this Court treat UCL claims and the violations upon which they are based as one in the same. However, Defendant has not cited, and the Court has not found, any authority which supports this position. Indeed, Defendant’s view seems to directly contradict the California Supreme Court‘s characterization of the UCL as a statute that “borrows” violations of other laws and makes them “independently actionable.” Accordingly, the Court does not find that Plaintiffs have somehow alleged a federal cause of action by basing their UCL claim in part on Defendant’s alleged violation of FLSA.
Defendant also contended that because most of Plaintiffs’ claims stem from their allegations that Defendant misclassified them as exempt from overtime compensation, and Plaintiffs’ overtime claim is entirely dependent on an interpretation of the FLSA, the resolution of Plaintiffs’ claims depends upon the resolution of whether Defendant violated the FLSA. The court was not persuaded.
Although Defendant is correct in noting that most of Plaintiffs’ claims stem from allegations that Defendant improperly classified them as exempt, there is no indication in the complaint that this misclassification is based on exemptions set forth in federal law, as opposed to California law. . . . Where a plaintiff has alleged a UCL claim based on both the violation of state and federal law, courts have found that federal question jurisdiction does not exist. See, e.g., Holliman v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14627 at *13 (N.D. Cal. March 14, 2006) (finding no federal question jurisdiction where UCL claim was based on violations of California Labor Code and FLSA); Roskind v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co. 165 F. Supp. 2d 1059, 1067 (N.D. Cal. April 11, 2001) (finding no federal question jurisdiction where UCL claim was based on “unfair” misrepresentations and violation of the National Association of Securities Dealers rules); Castro v. Providian Nat’l Bank, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19062 at *8-9 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 29, 2000) (finding that even if plaintiffs were basing UCL claim on violation of federal Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”) in addition to violations of California law, claim did not depend on question of federal law because jury could find violation of section 17200 without finding violation of TILA).
Here, Plaintiffs have alleged a UCL claim based on a number of “unlawful” acts, which include two FLSA violations in addition to nine violations of the California Labor Code. Because a single unlawful business practice may give rise to liability under the UCL, a jury could very well find that Defendant violated section 17200 without also finding that it violated the FLSA. As such, Plaintiffs’ UCL claim does not depend upon the resolution of a question of federal law.
Id. **3-4.
By CHARLES H. JUNG
