Category Archives: Motion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication

Second District Reverses Summary Judgment on All Wage and Hour Claims

GLENDALE, CA - JANUARY 30:  A truck leaves the...
Image by Getty Images via @daylife

The Court of Appeal for the Second District reversed summary judgment on wage and hour claims in Porter v. Ralphs Grocery Company, No. B218220, 2010 WL 3704055 (Cal. Ct. App. 2d Dist. Sept. 23, 2010).  Plaintiff alleged that defendant required him to work overtime off the clock, and by doing this defendant both denied plaintiff proper wages and made it difficult for plaintiff to calculate the overtime pay due him.  Id. *8.  Plaintiff also alleged that defendant failed to afford meal periods of at least one-half hour in which he was relieved of all duties, and that he regularly worked without taking the 10 minute rest breaks due him.  Id. Plaintiff alleged violation of Labor Code sections 1174, 226.7, and 512. Id. He also alleged violation of Labor Code sections 201 and 203 for failure to pay all sums due plaintiff immediately upon termination of his employment.  Id. Additionally, he alleged defendant retaliated against him for his having requested that he not have to work off the books. Id.

The Court of Appeal held that “when an employee continues to work at the end of his shift even when not requested or required to do so, and the employer knows or has reason to know about such continuing work, then the time is considered working time and it is the duty of management to see that the post-shift work is not performed if it does not want the employee to work past his shift.” Id. *9 (citing Morillion v. Royal Packing Co., 22 Cal. 4th 575 (2000)). Continue reading

Tagged , , , , , , ,

Evidence of Possession of Alleged Trade Secret and Ability to Bring Devices to Market Faster Than Claimant Sufficient to State Claim

Max Mathews on 80th birthday talking about all...
Image via Wikipedia

In Aqua-Lung America, Inc. v. American Underwater Products, Inc., 2010 WL 2991512 (N.D. Cal. July 28, 2010) (slip op.), plaintiff moved for reconisderation of an order denying summary judgment on trade secret misappropriation claim for trade secret misappropriation.  Judge Richard Seeborg of the Northern District of California held that relying on evidence from an economic expert, joined with evidence that plaintiff was in possession of the alleged trade secrets and that it was able to bring its devices to market in advance of defendants, allows sufficient inferences to support the existence of triable issues of fact as to the trade secrets claim.  The court denied reconsideration.

By CHARLES H. JUNG

Enhanced by Zemanta
Tagged , , , , , , ,