calwages.com

Posts Tagged ‘San Francisco’

Ninth Circuit Avoids Broad Ruling in Kilgore v. KeyBank

In Arbitration, Class Waiver, Concepcion, Public Claims, Unfair Competition Law on April 11, 2013 at 5:49 pm
Wright brothers flying over the Kohn plantatio...

Wright brothers flying over the Kohn plantation in Montgomery, Alabama, where they set up a flying school. Maxwell Air Force Base was later built on the site. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The Ninth Circuit took a narrow approach in a ruling which had been expected to  have implications for wage & hour class actions.  The en banc court today compelled arbitration in Kilgore v. Keybank, National Association, but declined to issue a broad holding vitiating the Broughton-Cruz rule.  Kilgore v. Keybank, National Association, No. 09-16703, __ F.3d __ (9th Cir. Apr. 11, 2013) (en banc).  The appeal involved a putative class action by former students of a failed flight-training school who seek broad injunctive relief against the bank that originated their student loans among others.  The en banc court held that the arbitration agreement was not unconscionable under California law and reversed and remanded with instructions to compel arbitration.

The court concluded that the injunctive relief claim at issue fell outside Broughton-Cruz’s “narrow exception to the rule that the FAA requires state courts to honor arbitration agreements.”

The central premise of Broughton-Cruz is that “the judicial forum has significant institutional advantages over arbitration in administering a public injunctive remedy, which as a consequence will likely lead to the diminution or frustration of the public benefit if the remedy is entrusted to arbitrators.” Broughton, 988 P.2d at 78. That concern is absent here, where Defendants’ alleged statutory violations have, by Plaintiffs’ own admission, already ceased, where the class affected by the alleged practices is small, and where there is no real prospective benefit to the public at large from the relief sought.

You can read more about today’s ruling here.

Attorneys Read the rest of this entry »

Advertisements

Defense Verdict in Bartender Overtime and Meal Break Case

In Trial, Verdicts on September 2, 2010 at 8:29 am
Interior view of the Toll Gate Saloon in Black...
Image via Wikipedia

After a bench trial, a San Francisco Superior Court rendered a defense verdict in an overtime and meal break case.  Tun Cun vs. Cafe Tiramisu, No. CGC08482090, 36 Trials Digest 13th 19 (Verdict Date March 26, 2009).  According to court records: Plaintiff Evangelina Tun Cun was a bartender under an oral employment agreement who worked form 4 pm to midnight. Ms. Tun Cun alleged she was owed wages from defendant Cafe Tiramisu LLC.  Plaintiff alleged she was also employed by MMP Restaurants LLC dba Campannina from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. each day. She claimed the two employers jointly employed her, and she was not paid overtime, though she worked for 11 to 15 hours of work per day. Plaintiff claimed she was not given meal breaks, was not paid overtime, and was owed waiting-time penalties. Read the rest of this entry »

Judge Walker Lifts Stay

In Breaking News, Other Cases of Interest on August 12, 2010 at 1:13 pm
2008 Proposition 8 Protest
Image by Fibonacci Blue via Flickr

Judge Vaughn R. Walker of the Northern District of California today lifted a stay on his decision where he ruled that Proposition 8 was unconstitutional.  Judge Walker, however, delayed implementation of the order to lift his stay until August 18.

Defendant-intervenors Dennis Hollingsworth, Gail Knight, Martin Gutierrez, Mark Jansson and ProtectMarriage.com brought a motion to stay the court’s judgment last week to ensure that Proposition 8 remains in effect as they pursue their appeal in the Ninth Circuit. In the alternative, proponents sought a brief stay to allow the court of appeals to consider the matter.

San Francisco asked the court to deny the stay and order the injunction against Proposition 8 to take effect immediately. California’s Governor and Attorney General also opposed any stay.

The Court held that “[b]ecause proponents fail to satisfy any of the factors necessary to warrant a stay, the court denies a stay except for a limited time solely in order to permit the court of appeals to consider the issue in an orderly manner.”

Federal courts look to four factors in deciding whether a stay is appropriate:

(1) whether proponents have made a strong showing that they are likely to succeed on the merits;

(2) whether proponents will be irreparably injured absent a stay;

(3) whether the stay will substantially injure other interested parties; and

(4) whether the stay is in the public interest.

See Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. —-, 129, S. Ct. 1749, 1761 (2009) (noting overlap with Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. —-, 129 S. Ct. 365, 374 (2008)).  The first two factors “are the most critical.”  Nken, 129 S. Ct. at 1757.

The order reads:

None of the factors the court weighs in considering a motion to stay favors granting a stay. Accordingly, proponents’ motion for a stay is DENIED. Doc #705. The clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment forthwith. That judgment shall be STAYED until August 18, 2010 at 5 PM PDT at which time defendants and all persons under their control or supervision shall cease to apply or enforce Proposition 8.

By CHARLES H. JUNG

Enhanced by Zemanta