Migis v. Autozone, Inc.
282 Or. App. 774 (Or. Ct. App. 2016) Cited 13 timesConcluding that the trial court did not err in rejecting a similar due process argument about statutory penalties on procedural grounds because a prejudgment "motion brought under ORCP 64 B—that evidence is insufficient ‘to justify the verdict or other decision, or that is against the law’—requires a prior motion for directed verdict [under ORCP 60 ]"
Migis v. AutoZone, Inc.
286 Or. App. 357 (Or. Ct. App. 2017) Cited 7 timesA150540 06-21-2017 Michael MIGIS, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Respondent Cross-Appellant, v. AUTOZONE, INC., a Nevada corporation, Defendant-Appellant Cross-Respondent. Roy Pulvers, Portland, and Holland & Knight LLP for petition. A.E. Bud Bailey, J. Dana Pinney, and Bailey, Pinney & Associates, LLC, for response. PER CURIAM. Roy Pulvers, Portland, and Holland & Knight LLP for petition. A.E. Bud Bailey, J. Dana Pinney, and Bailey, Pinney & Associates, LLC
Delgado v. Del Monte Fresh Produce, N.A.
260 Or. App. 480 (Or. Ct. App. 2014) Cited 6 timesIn Delgado, the defendant argued on appeal that the trial court erred when it awarded statutory penalty wages on summary judgment because whether it was an "employer" (as defined by ORS 652.310) of the class members for the purpose of ORS 652.150 was a factual issue that should have been decided by the jury.
Rule 5 - Serving and Filing Pleadings and Other Papers
Fed. R. Civ. P. 5 Cited 22,753 times 16 Legal AnalysesAllowing service by filing papers with the court's electronic-filing system
Section 216 - Penalties
29 U.S.C. § 216 Cited 16,645 times 142 Legal AnalysesHolding employers liable for “unpaid minimum wages, or their unpaid overtime compensation”
Rule 42 - Consolidation; Separate Trials
Fed. R. Civ. P. 42 Cited 9,422 times 24 Legal AnalysesGranting court's authority to consolidate related cases or "issue any other orders to avoid unnecessary cost or delay."