§Why CasetextPricing

Jeri Farrar v. Catalina Restaurant Group, Inc. et al

REPLY Support NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Summary Judgment 77

10 Cited authorities

  1. Witherow v. Paff

    52 F.3d 264 (9th Cir. 1995)   Cited 683 times
    Holding that a prisoner "enjoys a First Amendment right to send and receive mail"

  2. Nelson v. Pima Community College

    83 F.3d 1075 (9th Cir. 1996)   Cited 564 times
    Holding that "mere allegation and speculation do not create a factual dispute for purposes of summary judgment"

  3. Frymire v. Ampex Corp.

    61 F.3d 757 (10th Cir. 1995)   Cited 81 times
    Holding that the statute of limitations for breach of contract claims applies to civil WARN Act claims

  4. Bader v. North. Line Layers

    503 F.3d 813 (9th Cir. 2007)   Cited 38 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that facilities "cannot be aggregated under the [governing regulations] because those sites are located in many different states and are not in reasonable geographic proximity or in the same geographic area"

  5. Collins v. Gee West Seattle LLC

    631 F.3d 1001 (9th Cir. 2011)   Cited 23 times   2 Legal Analyses

    No. 09-36110. Argued and Submitted July 15, 2010. Filed January 21, 2011. Michael C. Subit (argued), Frank, Freed, Subit Thomas, LLP, Seattle, WA, for plaintiffs-appellants Todd Collins, et al. Richard P. Lentini (argued), Ryan, Swanson Cleveland, PLLC, Seattle, WA, for defendant-appellee Gee West Seattle, LLC. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, Marsha J. Pechman, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. 2:08-cv-00238-MJP. Before: PAMELA ANN RYMER and

  6. Long v. Dunlop Sports Group Americas

    506 F.3d 299 (4th Cir. 2007)   Cited 23 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that DOL regulations expressly provide that a "'termination' does not occur simply because an employee no longer performs the work that the employee formerly performed."

  7. Section 2101 - Definitions; exclusions from definition of loss of employment

    29 U.S.C. § 2101   Cited 821 times   39 Legal Analyses
    Defining "mass layoff" as "a reduction in force" that is not the result of a plant closing and "(B) results in an employment loss"

  8. Section 2102 - Notice required before plant closings and mass layoffs

    29 U.S.C. § 2102   Cited 456 times   24 Legal Analyses
    Requiring notice to "chief elected official of the unit of local government within which [a covered] closing or layoff is to occur"

  9. Section 1400 - Title

    Cal. Lab. Code § 1400   Cited 51 times   13 Legal Analyses
    In section 1400, the Legislature set out the definition of a number of key terms used in the California WARN Act. Of particular relevance here is section 1400, subdivision (d), which defines "mass layoff."

  10. Section 1401 - Notice of mass layoff, relocation or termination

    Cal. Lab. Code § 1401   Cited 16 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Requiring employers to give written notice to affected employees 60 days prior to "mass layoff, relocation, or termination"