§Why CasetextPricing

Response To Defendants Separate Statement

Response

5 Cited authorities

  1. Mycogen Corporation v. Monsanto Company

    28 Cal.4th 888 (Cal. 2002)   Cited 836 times
    Holding that a judgment granting declaratory relief and decreeing specific performance barred, under claim preclusion, a subsequent suit for damages

  2. Hesse v. Sprint Corp.

    598 F.3d 581 (9th Cir. 2010)   Cited 177 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding earlier settlement release was not enforceable to bar later claims "brought to remedy a different set of injuries"

  3. Consumer Adv. Group v. Exxonmobil Corp.

    168 Cal.App.4th 675 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 79 times
    In Consumer Advocacy Group, Inc. v. ExxonMobil Corp., 168 Cal. App. 4th 675, 680 (2008), the court found that a separate action did not bar the plaintiff's claim because the two actions did not address identical issues.

  4. Countrywide Financial Corp. v. Bundy

    187 Cal.App.4th 234 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010)   Cited 35 times   2 Legal Analyses
    In Countrywide, the arbitration agreement stated, “ ‘Except as provided in this Agreement, the Federal Arbitration Act shall govern the interpretation, enforcement and all proceedings pursuant to this Agreement.

  5. Lao v. H&M Hennes & Mauritz, L.P.

    Case No. 5:16-cv-00333-EJD (N.D. Cal. Oct. 25, 2017)   Cited 1 times

    Case No. 5:16-cv-00333-EJD 10-25-2017 SER LAO, Plaintiff, v. H&M HENNES & MAURITZ, L.P., Defendant. EDWARD J. DAVILA United States District Judge ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT Re: Dkt. No. 47 I. INTRODUCTION In this putative class action suit, Plaintiff Ser Lao ("Plaintiff" or "Lao") alleges his former employer, Defendant H&M Hennes & Maritz, L.P ("Defendant"), failed to provide accurate itemized wage statements and failed to pay minimum wage, overtime wages, and premium