Lawsuit | 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

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

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

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

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

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

Protective Orders

Central District Issues Rare Opinion Rejecting Stipulated Protective Order

: 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 Ford Motor Company, Google, Injunction, Lawsuit, Lawyer, Police, United States District Court for the Central District of California, United States magistrate judge

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.”

: 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 Breach of contract, Business, Declaratory judgment, Google, Lanham Act, Lawsuit, Plaintiff, Summary judgment

Jan 09 2011

Leave a comment

Injunctive Relief

Plaintiffs in Wage & Hour Class Action Granted Temporary Restraining Order

: Image via Wikipedia

In an unusual move, plaintiffs in Arrendondo v. Delano Farms Company, No. CV F 09-1247 LJO DLB, 2010 WL 3212000 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 10, 2010), sought and were granted a temporary restraining order. Plaintiffs filed an Application pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 65 requesting a Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”) against defendant Delano Farms Company to restrain potential retaliation and threats to witnesses and putative class members by defendant. The Application was supported by declarations of three witnesses and potential class members who heard threats by a supervisor of Delano Farms as well as declarations from Jessica Arciniega and Thomas P. Lynch, attorneys representing plaintiffs, and Aida Sotelo, a paralegal who investigated the threats. Continue reading →

Tagged Class action, Injunction, Law, Lawsuit, Legal Information, Plaintiff, United States Supreme Court, Wal-Mart

California Employment Lawyer

Tag Archives: Lawsuit

Second District Reverses Summary Judgment on All Wage and Hour Claims

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

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

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

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

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

Central District Issues Rare Opinion Rejecting Stipulated Protective Order

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.”

Plaintiffs in Wage & Hour Class Action Granted Temporary Restraining Order