§Why CasetextPricing

Opposition Objections

undefined

22 Cited authorities

  1. Brinker Rest. Corp. v. Superior Court of San Diego Cnty.

    53 Cal.4th 1004 (Cal. 2012)   Cited 813 times   83 Legal Analyses
    Holding the employer is required to provide a meal period to employees, but "is not obligated to police meal breaks and ensure no work thereafter is performed"

  2. C.A. v. William S. Hart Union High School District

    53 Cal.4th 861 (Cal. 2012)   Cited 211 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Finding that supervisory personnel could be vicariously liable and noting that "public school personnel may be individually liable for their negligent failure to protect students from harm at others' hands"

  3. Caliber Bodyworks, Inc. v. Superior Court

    134 Cal.App.4th 365 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005)   Cited 203 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that plaintiffs could not pursue civil penalties for a Section 558 violation without complying with the pre-filing notice and exhaustion requirements of PAGA

  4. Ghazaryan v. Diva Limousine, Ltd.

    169 Cal.App.4th 1524 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 73 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Listing Owens factors in ordering that class certification of a claim seeking gap time for individual drivers, on the ground that the record revealed the employer dictated to a large extent how drivers used their on-call time

  5. Brown v. Ralphs Grocery Co.

    28 Cal.App.5th 824 (Cal. Ct. App. 2018)   Cited 53 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the legislative intent behind PAGA foreclosed the availability of equitable tolling

  6. Cardenas v. McLane Foodservices, Inc.

    796 F. Supp. 2d 1246 (C.D. Cal. 2011)   Cited 58 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that PAGA's notice requirement does not require "inclusion of every potential fact or every future theory" and rejecting the employer's attempt to "bind" the plaintiffs to the "facts and theories exactly as laid out" in the notice letter as this would give rise to "absurd results" and would "undermine the principles of PAGA" to the extent that the plaintiffs could not file suit or obtain discovery until after they gave the required notice

  7. Speegle v. Board of Fire Underwriters

    29 Cal.2d 34 (Cal. 1946)   Cited 208 times
    Holding at-will employment contract is a contract for purpose of interference tort

  8. Khan v. Dunn-Edwards Corp.

    19 Cal.App.5th 804 (Cal. Ct. App. 2018)   Cited 17 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Affirming summary judgment for defendant where notice "expressly applied only to [plaintiff]" and failed to give the LWDA an adequate opportunity to decide whether to investigate a representative action or provide the company an adequate opportunity to respond to the agency.

  9. Hendershot v. Ready to Roll Transp., Inc.

    228 Cal.App.4th 1213 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014)   Cited 18 times   1 Legal Analyses

    B247730 2014-08-14 Daniel HENDERSHOT et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. READY TO ROLL TRANSPORTATION, INC. et al., Defendants and Respondents. APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, William F. Fahey, Judge. Reversed and remanded. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC485401) The Gillam Law Firm, Jody M. Borrelli and Carol L. Gillam for Plaintiffs and Appellants. Fraser, Watson & Croutch, Todd E. Croutch and Daniel K. Dik for Defendants and Respondents. CROSKEY APPEAL

  10. In re BCBG Overtime Cases

    163 Cal.App.4th 1293 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 20 times   2 Legal Analyses
    In BCBG Overtime, the Fourth District relied on a case decided more than 20 years before the adoption of the California Rules of Court addressing class actions to conclude the putative class action may be defeated by a demurrer or motion to strike "if the defects in the class action allegations appear on the face of the complaint or by matter subject to judicial notice."

  11. Rule 5 - Serving and Filing Pleadings and Other Papers

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 5   Cited 22,753 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Allowing service by filing papers with the court's electronic-filing system

  12. Section 437 - Grounds for motion to appear on face of challenged pleading; motion based on matter subject to judicial notice

    Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 437   Cited 289 times   2 Legal Analyses

    (a) The grounds for a motion to strike shall appear on the face of the challenged pleading or from any matter of which the court is required to take judicial notice. (b) Where the motion to strike is based on matter of which the court may take judicial notice pursuant to Section 452 or 453 of the Evidence Code, such matter shall be specified in the notice of motion, or in the supporting points and authorities, except as the court may otherwise permit. Ca. Civ. Proc. Code § 437 Added by Stats. 1982

  13. Section 2 - Existing provisions

    Cal. Lab. Code § 2   Cited 97 times

    The provisions of this code, in so far as they are substantially the same as existing provisions relating to the same subject matter, shall be construed as restatements and continuations thereof and not as new enactments. Ca. Lab. Code § 2 Enacted by Stats. 1937, Ch. 90.

  14. Section 1011 - Manner of service

    Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1011   Cited 80 times
    Authorizing personal service on an attorney

  15. Section 1013 - Requirements for service by mail

    Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1013   Cited 74 times

    (a) In case of service by mail, the notice or other paper shall be deposited in a post office, mailbox, subpost office, substation, or mail chute, or other like facility regularly maintained by the United States Postal Service, in a sealed envelope, with postage paid, addressed to the person on whom it is to be served, at the office address as last given by that person on any document filed in the cause and served on the party making service by mail; otherwise at that party's place of residence.

  16. Section 1010.6 - Electronic service of document

    Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1010.6   Cited 39 times
    Authorizing trial courts to adopt local rules permitting electronic filing of documents