California Employment Lawyer

: Image via Wikipedia

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. Continue reading →

Tagged Arbitration, AT&T, California, California Labor Code, Federal Arbitration Act, Plaintiff, Supreme Court of California, United States Supreme Court

Jan 09 2011

Leave a comment

Bond

Southern District Requires Plaintiffs in CUTSA Case to Post $800,000 Bond for Fees and Costs Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 1030

: Image by scragz via Flickr

The United States District Court for the Southern District of California required plaintiffs in a UTSA case to post an $800,000 bond for fees and costs, pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 1030. Gabriel Technologies Corporation v. Qualcomm Incorporated, No. 08 CV 1992 MMA (POR), Slip Copy, 2010 WL 3718848 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 20, 2010).

The action arose out of events related to technology licenses and related joint ventures between Plaintiffs and their predecessor in interest, and Defendants. Id *1. In the Fourth Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs assert claims for: (1) Breach of the Amended and Restated License Agreement; (2) Correction of Inventorship (pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 256); (3) Declaratory Judgment of Ownership Interest in the Patents (pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201); and (4) Misappropriation (pursuant to Cal. Uniform Trade Secrets Act). Id. *2. Defendants filed a motion for a cost bond under California Code of Civil Procedure section 1030. Id. The Court also has authority under Civil Local Rule 65.1.2(a) to require Plaintiffs to post a bond “where authorized by law and for good cause shown.” Continue reading →

Tagged California, Civil procedure, Defendant, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Government, Law, Plaintiff, United States

Jan 09 2011

Leave a comment

Customer Lists, Demurrer/Motion to Dismiss, Injunctive Relief, Preemption, Preliminary Injunction, Trade Secrets

Northern District Denies Preliminary Injunction Where Plaintiff’s Declaration Failed to Show Customer List Was the Result of Substantial Time, Expense and Effort on Part of Plaintiff

: Image by myoldpostcards via Flickr

The Northern District of California denied defendants’ motion to dismiss based on UTSA preemption and denied plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction. Kovesdy v. Kovesdy, C 10-02012 SBA, 2010 WL 3619826 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 13, 2010) (slip op.). Plaintiff Eric Kovesdy (“Eric” or “Plaintiff”) sued his stepmother, Defendant Hedy Kovesdy (“Hedy”) for, inter alia, for misappropriation of trade secrets under California’s Uniform Trade Secrets Act (“UTSA”), Cal. Civ. Code §§ 3426-3426.11, and trademark infringement under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a). Id. (1) Defendants moved to dismiss; and (2) Plaintiff moved for preliminary injunction.

Background

Peter Kovesdy (“Peter”) opened a professional tax practice known as Humex Income Tax (“Humex”). Continue reading →

Tagged Defendant, Injunction, Lawsuit, Motion (legal), Northern District of California, Plaintiff, United States, United States District Court for the Northern District of California

Jan 09 2011

Leave a comment

Minimum Wage

Surprising Side Effect of the Minimum Wage: Finishing High School

: Image via Wikipedia

The National Bureau of Economic Research report suggests a surprising effect of the minimum wage: finishing high school. As reported by Kevin Lewis of the Boston Globe:

By curtailing low-wage/low-skill jobs, the minimum wage motivates young people to stay in school and become skilled. This effect then generates what the author calls an “educational cascade” by setting an example for the upcoming class of students. He estimates that the average male born in 1951 gained 0.2 years — and the average male born in 1986 gained 0.7 years — of high school due to the cumulative effect of the minimum wage.

Sutch, R., “The Unexpected Long-Run Impact of the Minimum Wage: An Educational Cascade,” National Bureau of Economic Research (September 2010).

By CHARLES JUNG

Tagged Boston Globe, Employment, High school, Labor, Minimum wage, National Bureau of Economic Research, United States, Wage

Jan 09 2011

Leave a comment

23(b)(3) Class, Claims, Class Actions, Contract, Paystub, Vacation, Wages

Class Certification Granted in Vacation, Uniform, Paycheck, Wage and Contract Class Action

: Image via Wikipedia

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. Continue reading →

Tagged Breach of contract, California, Class action, Law, Lawsuit, Plaintiff, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, United States Supreme Court

Jan 09 2011

Leave a comment

Customer Lists, Injunction Bond, Trade Secrets

Third Circuit Affirms Award of Damages in Misappropriation of Trade Secrets Case and Denial of Recovery on Injunction Bond After Employee’s Partial Success on Appeal

: Image via Wikipedia

The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the district court’s award of damages against employees on a claim brought by their former employer for, inter alia, misappropriation of trade secrets. Latuszewski v. Valic Financial Advisors, Inc., No. 08-1511, 2010 WL 3582434 (3rd Cir. Sept. 15, 2010). Former employer, VALIC Financial Advisors, Inc., bought claims against former employees Gary Latuszewski and James Rogan alleging breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, misappropriation of trade secrets, and tortious interference with contract. Id. *1. Employees appealed arguing that this award was in error and also that the District Court erred in declining to award them damages under VALIC’s injunction bond after this court vacated part of the District Court’s temporary injunction against them. Id. Continue reading →

Tagged D. Brooks Smith, Government, Injunction, Judicial Branch, Maryanne Trump Barry, United States, United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, United States district court

Jan 09 2011

Leave a comment

Employee Mobility, Investigations

Immediate Steps to Take Upon an Employee’s Departure for a Competitor

: Image via Wikipedia

Richard C. Darwin posted a useful summary and reminder of the steps an employer should take once an employee has decided to pursue an opportunity with a direct competitor. Darwin recommends the following nine common-sense precautionary measures to be taken right away to reduce the risk of lost or deleted evidence:

Secure the defecting employee’s computer and make sure no one uses it.
If the IT department recycles backup tapes, immediately suspend that practice.
Check the former employee’s office or workspace for missing documents and files.
Get copies of the tapes or electronic files if the building has security cameras. Continue reading →

Tagged Business, Computer file, Employment, Human resources, Internal Revenue Service, Non-disclosure agreement, Property insurance, United States Department of Labor

Jan 09 2011

Leave a comment

Alter Ego Liability, Attorneys' Fees, Labor Code 218.5

First District Denies Alter Ego Liability Even Where Officer Pays Self and Wife, While Failing to Pay Wages and Commissions

: Image by CaptPiper via Flickr

The Court of Appeal for the First District held that an officer’s failure to pay wages and commissions to an employee, while paying himself and his wife during the same period, is not the type of conduct that requires piercing the corporate veil. Wymore v. Minto, No. A125476, 2010 WL 3687511 (Cal. Ct. App. 1st Dist. Sept. 22, 2010).

Nor do we see any merit to appellants’ various arguments that it would work an injustice to allow respondent to hide behind EWM because it was his decision, as a director and officer of EWM, not to pay appellants wages and commissions in 2007, while paying himself and his wife during the same calendar year. The fact that respondent, as the president of EWM, may have intentionally failed to pay appellants is not the type of conduct that requires piercing the corporate veil. Continue reading →

Tagged Appeal, California Proposition 8, Court clerk, Defendant, Piercing the corporate veil, Plaintiff, San Francisco, William R. McGuiness

Jan 09 2011

Leave a comment

Administrative, Exemptions

After Bench Trial on UCL Claim, Northern District Finds “On-Job Supervisor” Properly Classified as Exempt Under Administrative Exemption

: Image via Wikipedia

District Judge Susan Illston of the Northern District of California conducted a bench trial of plaintiff’s overtime claim under the Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”) and found that defendant UPS met its burden of proving that plaintiff was properly classified as falling within the administrative exemption in his role as “On-Job Supervisor”. Lopez v. United Parcel Service, Inc., C 08-05396 SI, 2010 WL 3630619 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 14, 2010).

Background

Plaintiff Ben Lopez sued defendant United Parcel Service, Inc. (“UPS”) contending that UPS improperly classified him as an employee exempt from overtime compensation under California law. Id. *1. Continue reading →

Tagged California, Food and Drug Administration, Northern District of California, Plaintiff, Susan Illston, United States, United States District Court for the Northern District of California, United States Supreme Court

Jan 09 2011

Leave a comment

Attorneys' Fees, Lodestar

Fourth District Affirms Reduction of Fee Award to 12% of Fees Requested Under Labor Code Section 218.5

: Image by christopherallisonphotography.com via Flickr

The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed a fee award of $7,475 (about 12% of requested fees) under Labor Code section 218.5, where plaintiff recovered only $3,290 in statutory waiting time penalties and the damages sought in his complaint and ultimately obtained at trial were substantially less than the jurisdictional maximum for a limited civil case. Cochran v. El Cajon Motors, No. D055390, 2010 WL 3637540 (Cal. Ct. App. 4th Dist. Sept. 21, 2010).

Background

Defendant El Cajon Motors employed Cochran as a sales manager at its El Cajon Ford dealership until it terminated his employment in mid-January 2007. Id. *1. Continue reading →

Tagged Attorney's fee, Civil law (common law), Lawsuit, Lodestar, Moses, Plaintiff, Trial court, United States Supreme Court