34 Cited authorities

Eisen v. Carlisle Jacquelin
417 U.S. 156 (1974) Cited 3,776 times 22 Legal Analyses
Holding that individual notice to class members identifiable through reasonable efforts is mandatory in (b) actions
Mullane v. Central Hanover Tr. Co.
339 U.S. 306 (1950) Cited 10,422 times 19 Legal Analyses
Holding that due process requires a hearing "appropriate to the nature of the case"
Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts
472 U.S. 797 (1985) Cited 1,804 times 19 Legal Analyses
Holding that “the Due Process Clause of course requires that the named plaintiff at all times adequately represent the interests of the absent class members”
Ketchum v. Moses
24 Cal.4th 1122 (Cal. 2001) Cited 1,759 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that "the party seeking a fee enhancement bears the burden of proof
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"
PLCM Group, Inc. v. Drexler
22 Cal.4th 1084 (Cal. 2000) Cited 1,230 times 2 Legal Analyses
Finding no error in awarding "prevailing market rate for comparable legal services in San Francisco, where counsel is located" in a case heard in Los Angeles
Horsford v. Board of Trustees of California State University
132 Cal.App.4th 359 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005) Cited 520 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that failure to consider that payment for the case was deferred for four years in discussion of whether a multiplier was warranted was an abuse of discretion
Sav-On Drug Stores, Inc. v. Superior Court
34 Cal.4th 319 (Cal. 2004) Cited 518 times 10 Legal Analyses
Holding that common questions predominated in overtime case brought by chain store managers
Graham v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.
34 Cal.4th 553 (Cal. 2004) Cited 416 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding the trial court may consider results obtained in awarding a fee multiplier
Serrano v. Priest
20 Cal.3d 25 (Cal. 1977) Cited 949 times 8 Legal Analyses
Holding that denying benefits of the private attorney general rule to funded public-interest attorneys would be essentially inconsistent with the rule itself
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
Section 904.1 - Appeal to court of appeal
Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 904.1 Cited 4,468 times 5 Legal Analyses
Setting forth "one final judgment rule" under which, generally speaking, a party may appeal only after a final judgment
Rule 3 - Commencing an Action
Fed. R. Civ. P. 3 Cited 3,035 times 5 Legal Analyses
Stating that once the inmate has filed his motion with the clerk, "[t]he clerk must file the motion and enter it on the criminal docket of the case in which the challenged judgment was entered"
Section 2698 - Title of part
Cal. Lab. Code § 2698 Cited 1,604 times 36 Legal Analyses
This part shall be known and may be cited as the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004. Ca. Lab. Code § 2698 Added by Stats 2003 ch 906 (SB 796), s 2, eff. 1/1/2004.
Section 1011 - Manner of service
Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1011 Cited 80 times
Authorizing personal service on an attorney
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.
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

Plaintiffs Motion For Approval

34 Cited authorities

Holding that individual notice to class members identifiable through reasonable efforts is mandatory in (b) actions

Holding that due process requires a hearing "appropriate to the nature of the case"

Holding that “the Due Process Clause of course requires that the named plaintiff at all times adequately represent the interests of the absent class members”

Holding that "the party seeking a fee enhancement bears the burden of proof

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"

Finding no error in awarding "prevailing market rate for comparable legal services in San Francisco, where counsel is located" in a case heard in Los Angeles

Holding that failure to consider that payment for the case was deferred for four years in discussion of whether a multiplier was warranted was an abuse of discretion

Holding that common questions predominated in overtime case brought by chain store managers

Holding the trial court may consider results obtained in awarding a fee multiplier

Holding that denying benefits of the private attorney general rule to funded public-interest attorneys would be essentially inconsistent with the rule itself

Allowing service by filing papers with the court's electronic-filing system

Setting forth "one final judgment rule" under which, generally speaking, a party may appeal only after a final judgment

Stating that once the inmate has filed his motion with the clerk, "[t]he clerk must file the motion and enter it on the criminal docket of the case in which the challenged judgment was entered"

Authorizing personal service on an attorney

Authorizing trial courts to adopt local rules permitting electronic filing of documents