25 Cited authorities

Valles v. Ivy Hill Corp.
410 F.3d 1071 (9th Cir. 2005) Cited 588 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding claim was not preempted where it was based on a statutorily guaranteed right to work-free meal periods even though the CBA purported to waive the right to work-free meal periods
Murphy v. Kenneth Cole Productions Inc.
40 Cal.4th 1094 (Cal. 2007) Cited 525 times 19 Legal Analyses
Holding that California Labor Code claims have a three-year statute of limitations
Cortez v. Purolator Air Filtration Products Co.
23 Cal.4th 163 (Cal. 2000) Cited 570 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding restitution is "the return of the excess of what the plaintiff gave the defendant over the value of what the plaintiff received"
Burnside v. Kiewit
491 F.3d 1053 (9th Cir. 2007) Cited 389 times
Holding claim preempted where "right exists solely as a result of the CBA"
Gordon v. City of Oakland
627 F.3d 1092 (9th Cir. 2010) Cited 349 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that leave to amend is properly denied if amendment would be futile
Morillion v. Royal Packing
22 Cal.4th 575 (Cal. 2000) Cited 335 times 29 Legal Analyses
Holding that compulsory travel time on bus from departure point to work site is compensable
Goodman v. Kennedy
18 Cal.3d 335 (Cal. 1976) Cited 615 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that defendant attorney owed no duty to third parties who relied on faulty advice the attorney gave his clients "in the absence of any showing that the legal advice was foreseeably transmitted to or relied upon by plaintiffs or that plaintiffs were intended beneficiaries of a transaction to which the advice pertained"
Serrano v. Priest
5 Cal.3d 584 (Cal. 1971) Cited 539 times
Holding that the structure of the education funding system in California denied students equal protection
Barquis v. Merchants Collection Assn.
7 Cal.3d 94 (Cal. 1972) Cited 458 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that a complaint knowingly filed in an inconvenient venue is actionable process
Naranjo v. Spectrum Sec. Servs.
40 Cal.App.5th 444 (Cal. Ct. App. 2019) Cited 52 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that meal-and-rest premiums are not wages for purposes of wage-related derivative claims under the Labor Code
Section 17200 - Unfair competition defined
Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 Cited 18,400 times 316 Legal Analyses
Prohibiting unlawful business practices
Section 201 - Computation and payment of wages upon discharge
Cal. Lab. Code § 201 Cited 1,833 times 21 Legal Analyses
Providing that, "[i]f an employer discharges an employee, the wages earned and unpaid at the time of discharge are due and payable immediately"
Section 512 - Meal periods
Cal. Lab. Code § 512 Cited 1,202 times 33 Legal Analyses
Imposing these same meal break rules for all employees unless otherwise exempted

Opposition Objections

25 Cited authorities

Holding claim was not preempted where it was based on a statutorily guaranteed right to work-free meal periods even though the CBA purported to waive the right to work-free meal periods

Holding that California Labor Code claims have a three-year statute of limitations

Holding restitution is "the return of the excess of what the plaintiff gave the defendant over the value of what the plaintiff received"

Holding claim preempted where "right exists solely as a result of the CBA"

Holding that leave to amend is properly denied if amendment would be futile

Holding that compulsory travel time on bus from departure point to work site is compensable

Holding that the structure of the education funding system in California denied students equal protection

Holding that a complaint knowingly filed in an inconvenient venue is actionable process

Holding that meal-and-rest premiums are not wages for purposes of wage-related derivative claims under the Labor Code

Prohibiting unlawful business practices

Providing that, "[i]f an employer discharges an employee, the wages earned and unpaid at the time of discharge are due and payable immediately"

Imposing these same meal break rules for all employees unless otherwise exempted