Monthly Archives: January 2011

Jan 09 2011
Leave a comment
Trial, Verdicts

Defense Verdict in Bartender Overtime and Meal Break Case

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. Continue reading →

Tagged , , , , , , ,
Jan 09 2011
Leave a comment
Jury

Northern District Strikes Jury Demand in Wage & Hour Class Action for Failure to Timely Plead

Becker jury going to luncheon (LOC)
Image by The Library of Congress via Flickr

The Northern District struck a jury trial demand in a putative wage and hour class action.  Rodriguez v. Sears Holding Corporation, No. 10-1268 SC, 2010 WL 3341656 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2010).  Plaintiff originally filed his complaint in Alameda Superior Court.  Id. *1.  Plaintiff was an employee of Defendants, and brought a putative class action on behalf of himself and others similarly situated for violations of various provisions of California’s Labor Code and Business and Professions Code, including failure to pay overtime wages, failure to allow and pay for meal and rest periods, failure to pay compensation upon discharge, and failure to provide proper wage statements. Id. Continue reading →

Tagged , , , , , , ,
Jan 09 2011
Leave a comment
Protective Orders

Central District Issues Rare Opinion Rejecting Stipulated Protective Order

Tire-Euro-Bad
Image via Wikipedia By CHARLES H. JUNG

Magistrate Judge Fernando M. Olguin issued a rare opinion about a stipulated protective order, rejecting the proposed  stipulated order in Murphy v. Continental Tire North America, Inc., No. CV 09-3004 GHK (FMOx), 2010 WL 3260183 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2010).  The court gave six  reasons for the rejection, including the failure to include a good cause statement (citing Makar-Wellbon v. Sony Elecs., Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated protective orders require good cause showing)), lack of specificity in the description of the material to be protected (the parties used conclusory terms such as “confidential technical information”), and duration (“once a case proceeds to trial, all of the information that was designated as confidential and/or kept and maintained pursuant to the terms of a protective order becomes public and will be presumptively available to all members of the public, including the press, unless good cause is shown to the district judge in advance of the trial to proceed otherwise”).   Continue reading →

Tagged , , , , , , ,
Jan 09 2011
Leave a comment
Collective Bargaining, Waiver

Collective Bargaining Agreement That Mentions “Breaks” Does Not Clearly and Unmistakably Waive Right to Sue

A rally of the trade union UNISON in Oxford du...
Image via Wikipedia

In Martinez v. J. Fletcher Creamer & Son, Inc., 2010 WL 3359372 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 13, 2010), the court held that a collective bargaining agreement that mentions “breaks” did not clearly and unmistakably waive plaintiff’s right to sue.

Plaintiff Antonio Martinez  (“Plaintiff”) worked for Defendant J. Fletcher Creamer & Son, Inc. (“Defendant”) as a construction worker. Id. *1. Plaintiff’s terms of employment were governed by a CBA, which provides for a grievance procedure for “enforcing all the terms and provisions contained in this Agreement .” Id. If an employee has “a grievance or dispute,” he must first raise the issue with Defendant. The CBA outlined the terms of employment relating to holidays, payment of wages, meal periods, and breaks, and in a section entitled “Breaks,” the CBA stated: Continue reading →

Tagged , , , , , , ,
Jan 09 2011
Leave a comment
IWC Orders

Southern District Rejects Argument That Wage Order 7-2001 Invalid

A CVS pharmacy in Southside Place, Texas, form...
Image via Wikipedia

In Kilby v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., Civil No. 09cv2051-L(CAB), 2010 WL 3339464 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 23, 2010) (slip op.) Defendant argued that provisions of Wage Order 7-2001 were invalid because the IWC, before adopting any new rules, regulations or policies, was required by Labor Code section 1173 to consult with the California Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board to determine areas of potential overlap, which it is alleged to have failed to do because it delegated too much to the staff. Id. *2.  The court rejected this argument, agreeing with the California Court of Appeal in California Manufacturers Association v. Industrial Welfare Commission, 109 Cal. App. 3d 95, 122-23 (1980).

Defendant also argued that the action should be dismissed because the pertinent provision of Wage Order 7-2001 is not incorporated into Labor Code Section 1198. Section 1198 provides: Continue reading →

Tagged , , , , , , ,
Jan 09 2011
Leave a comment
Remedies

Saved Development Costs Available as Measure of Damages

500 Oracle Parkway at the Oracle Corp. headqua...
Image via Wikipedia

Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton of the Northern District of California issued an order this week on motions for partial summary judgment in Oracle Corp. v. SAP AG, et al., No. C 07-1658 PJH, 2010 WL 3258603 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 17, 2010) (slip op.).   In considering whether recovery of “saved development costs” is an available measure of damages, the court  distinguished Ajaxo, Inc. v. E*Trade Group, Inc., 135 Cal. App. 4th 21 (2005);

Continue reading →

Tagged , , , , , , ,
Jan 09 2011
Leave a comment
Meal and Rest Breaks

Second District Holds That, Pending Brinker, Employer Has a Duty to Provide Meal Breaks “as a Practical Matter”

Meal break for teamsters and horses from The P...
Image via Wikipedia

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. Continue reading →

Tagged , , , , , , ,
Jan 09 2011
Leave a comment
Discrimination, Gender Discrimination, Racial Discrimination, Title VII

Northern District of California Holds That Allegation of Denial of Overtime Based on Race or Sex States Discrimination Claim Under Title VII

Final roll call vote in the U.S. House of Repr...
Image via Wikipedia

The Northern District of California considered whether an allegation of failure to allow overtime because of a plaintiff’s race or sex states a claim for discrimination under Title VII.  The court held that it did.

In Moore v. Contra Costa College District, No. C 09-4781 MEJ, 2010 WL 3324895 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 23, 2010) (slip op.), Plaintiff filed an employment discrimination complaint as a pro se litigant, bringing suit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, specifically 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5. Continue reading →

Tagged , , , , , , ,
Jan 09 2011
Leave a comment
Just for Fun

Judge William Alsup Warns Litigants in Golf Club Case: “No mulligans on summary judgment or discovery will be permitted. Both sides must be ready to come out swinging.”

362.365 - My lucky golf outfit
Image by Jeff the Trojan via Flickr

In Swingless Golf Club Corp. v. Taylor, No. C 08-05574 WHA, — F. Supp. 2d —-, 2010 WL 3081255 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 6, 2010), plaintiff claims patent infringement, misappropriation of trade secrets, unfair competition under Section 17200 of the California Business and Professions Code, violation of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1125(a), and breach of contract related to the “swingless” golf club.  At the heart of the dispute is a golf club that is a:

pyrotechnic device that uses explosive charges, a wedge-shaped piston, and a trigger to blast golf balls hundreds of yards down a fairway. Designed for golfers who cannot (or would rather not) swing, this intriguing invention– which looks like a traditional golf club except that it is loaded with gunpowder . . . . Continue reading →

Tagged , , , , , , ,
Jan 09 2011
Leave a comment
Procedure, Trial

Expedited Jury Trial Bill Passes

California State Senate chamber
Image via Wikipedia

In a positive development for both plaintiffs and defendants, a bill establishing an expedited jury trial procedure has sailed through the California Legislature.  The Wall Street Journal Law Blog and The Recorder reported today that Assembly Bill No. 2284 was approved by the legislature on a unanimous vote.  The bill, entitled the Expedited Jury Trials Act, was introduced by Assembly Member Noreen Evans (D-Santa Rosa).  It calls for the establishment of strealined jury trials in civil cases, where the parties stipulate to them.  Some of the highlights:

  • Waiver of all rights to appeal, motions for directed verdict, and post-trial motions;
  • Only 3 hours per side to present its case;
  • Jury sizes of 8 or fewer, with no alternates, and only 3 peremptory challenges;
  • Provision for high/low agreements: (i.e., a voluntarily agreement specifying a minimum and maximum amount of damages, regardless of the ultimate verdict issued returned by the jury).

By CHARLES H. JUNG

Enhanced by Zemanta
Tagged , , , , , , ,
← Older posts
Newer posts →