Defendant | California Employment Lawyer

: 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 Defendant, Ecuador, Lawsuit, Overtime, Plaintiff, Superior Court of Los Angeles County, United States, Working time

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

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

Class Discovery, Discovery, Opt-out

Central District Rejects Opt-Out Procedure and Orders Disclosure of Name and Contact Information for Members of an Unpaid Commission Wages Class Action

: Image via Wikipedia

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. Continue reading →

Tagged California Supreme Court, Class action, Defendant, Law, Legal Information, Plaintiff, Superior court, United States

Jan 09 2011

Leave a comment

Class Discovery, Discovery

Northern District Compels Pre-Certification Production of Class-wide Timecards and Payroll Records

: Image by Getty Images via @daylife

The Northern District granted a putative class representative’s motion to compel timecard and payroll records for all employees in Valenzuela v. MC2 Pool & Spa, et al., No. C09-01698 RS (HRL), 2010 WL 3489596 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 3, 2010). Continue reading →

Tagged Class action, Defendant, Electronically Stored Information, Employment, Lawsuit, Motion to compel, Plaintiff, United States District Court for the Northern District of California

Jan 09 2011

Leave a comment

Verdicts

Southern District Jury Issues Verdict for $2,969,932 on Misappropriation of Trade Secrets Claims

: Image via Wikipedia

Plaintiff in a trade secret misappropriation and patent infringement case won a jury verdict for $11,909,797. I-Flow Corporation vs. Apex Medical Technologies Inc., No. 07CV01200(DMS), 36 Trials Digest 13th 16 (S.D. Cal. Verdict Date Oct. 28, 2009). As reported by Trials Digest, plaintiff’s award included $1,484,966 damages from defendant Apex to plaintiff for misappropriation of plaintiff’s trade secrets; and$1,484,966 damages from defendant McGlothlin to plaintiff for misappropriation of plaintiff’s trade secrets. Continue reading →

Tagged Confidentiality, Defendant, Infusion pump, Patent infringement, Plaintiff, San Diego, Trade secret, United States

Jan 09 2011

Leave a comment

CAFA Jurisdiction, Certification, Class Actions

Eastern District Holds That Plaintiffs May Rely on a “Few Representative Inquiries” and Extrapolate to the Class

: Image via Wikipedia

The court in Adoma v. University of Phoenix, Inc., No. CIV. S-10-0059 LKK/GGH, 2010 WL 3431804 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 31, 2010 (slip op.) held that even where plaintiff’s proposed method of “reconstructing records of hours worked . . . will be imperfect”, plaintiffs may rely on “a few representative inquiries whose results will be extrapolated to the class.” Continue reading →

Tagged Class action, Class Action Fairness Act, Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, Defendant, Fair Labor Standards Act, Lawsuit, Plaintiff, University of Phoenix

Jan 09 2011

Leave a comment

Arbitration, Attorneys' Fees

Third District Affirms Arbitrator’s Award Denying Mandatory Attorneys’ Fees to Prevailing Plaintiff

: Image by StevenM_61 via Flickr

The Third District in Miller v. Lifestyles Senior Housing Managers et al., No. C059843, 2010 WL 3398750 (Cal. Ct. App. 3d Dist. Aug. 31, 2010), affirmed the trial court’s judgment confirming an arbitrator’s decision denying statutorily mandated attorneys fees to the prevailing plaintiff. Id. *1. Continue reading →

Tagged Arbitral tribunal, Attorney's fee, Civil procedure, Defendant, Law, Lawsuit, Legal Information, Plaintiff

Jan 09 2011

Leave a comment

Jury

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

: 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 California, Defendant, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Jury trial, Plaintiff, Samuel Conti, Sears, Superior court

California Employment Lawyer

Tag Archives: Defendant

Second District Reverses Summary Judgment on All Wage and Hour Claims

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

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

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

Central District Rejects Opt-Out Procedure and Orders Disclosure of Name and Contact Information for Members of an Unpaid Commission Wages Class Action

Northern District Compels Pre-Certification Production of Class-wide Timecards and Payroll Records

Southern District Jury Issues Verdict for $2,969,932 on Misappropriation of Trade Secrets Claims

Eastern District Holds That Plaintiffs May Rely on a “Few Representative Inquiries” and Extrapolate to the Class

Third District Affirms Arbitrator’s Award Denying Mandatory Attorneys’ Fees to Prevailing Plaintiff

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