Plaintiff | California Employment Lawyer

Jan 09 2011

CAFA Jurisdiction, Class Actions, Remand

Central District Remands Minimum Wage and Overtime Class Action for Failure to Satisfy CAFA Amount in Controversy

: Image by Roger Smith via Flickr

The Central District remanded a putative minimum wage and overtime class action suit in Munoz v. Central Parking Sys., Inc., No. CV 10-6172 PA (RCx), 2010 WL 3432239 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 30, 2010) (unpublished).

Plaintiff’s complaint attempted to avoid removal, stating “[i]t is believed that the total sum owed to the Class alleged herein is less than $5 million, based upon the anticipated size of the Class and the amount in controversy for each member of the Class.” Id. *1. Continue reading →

Tagged Central District, Class action, Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, Minimum wage, Plaintiff, United States, United States Supreme Court, Wage

Jan 09 2011

Leave a comment

Verdicts

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Awards Judgment of $3,135 in Misappropriation of Trade Secrets Case Involving Former Sales Employees

: Image by QuintanaRoo via Flickr

A former employer was awarded $3,135 in compensatory damages after a Los Angeles Superior Court bench trial related to former sales employees’ alleged misappropriation of trade secrets . LifeSource Water Systems Inc. vs. Stansfield, GC041297, 36 Trials Digest 13th 12 (Judgment Date May 4, 2009). Plaintiff filed suit for breach of written contract, misappropriation of trade secrets, unfair competition, and interference with prospective economic advantage. According to Trials Digest, the court issued a permanent injunction, ordered defendants to deliver all of plaintiff’s property in their possession, ordered Stansfield to pay $1,940 compensatory damages and ordered Kline to pay $1,195 compensatory damages. Continue reading →

Tagged Business, California, Counties, Los Angeles, Los Angeles County Superior Court, Los Angeles Superior Court, Plaintiff, United States

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

Trial, Verdicts

Defense Verdict in Bartender Overtime and Meal Break Case

: 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 Break (work), Employment, Littler Mendelson, Plaintiff, San Francisco, San Francisco County Superior Court, San Francisco Superior Court, United States

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

Jan 09 2011

Leave a comment

Remedies

Saved Development Costs Available as Measure of Damages

: 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 Northern District of California, Oracle Corporation, Plaintiff, SAP AG, Summary judgment, Trade secret, United States, United States District Court for the Northern District of California

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

: 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 1964 Civil Rights Act, Discrimination, Employment, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Plaintiff, United States, United States District Court for the Northern District of California, United States Supreme Court

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

Tag Archives: Plaintiff