§Why CasetextPricing

Trial Brief

Brief

7 Cited authorities

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

    53 Cal.4th 1004 (Cal. 2012)   Cited 828 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. Armenta v. Osmose, Inc.

    135 Cal.App.4th 314 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005)   Cited 139 times   17 Legal Analyses
    Holding employees were entitled to at least a minimum hourly wage for uncompensated time spent traveling, loading equipment and supplies, doing paperwork, and maintaining company vehicles

  3. Mendiola v. CPS Sec. Sols., Inc.

    60 Cal.4th 833 (Cal. 2015)   Cited 77 times   14 Legal Analyses
    Finding that employer restrictions on "nonemployee visitors, pets, and alcohol use" were relevant to determining control

  4. Gonzalez v. Downtown LA Motors, LP

    215 Cal.App.4th 36 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013)   Cited 65 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Holding that automotive service technicians paid under a piece-rate plan for repair work are also entitled to separate hourly compensation for non-productive time directed by the employer during their work shifts because California law does not allow an employer to average total compensation over total hours worked in a pay period

  5. Hernandez v. Mendoza

    199 Cal.App.3d 721 (Cal. Ct. App. 1988)   Cited 94 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "where the employer has failed to keep records required by statute, the consequences for such failure should fall on the employer, not the employee"

  6. Furry v. E. Bay Publ'g, LLC

    30 Cal.App.5th 1072 (Cal. Ct. App. 2018)   Cited 12 times
    Holding that the employer had not presented a viable defense because it conceded that the wage statements were deficient in the manner alleged by the employee and did not "contend that the requisite information was omitted due to a clerical or inadvertent mistake"

  7. Section 1569.191 - Sale and transfer of property and business

    Cal. Health & Saf. Code § 1569.191

    (a) Notwithstanding Section 1569.19, in the event of a sale of a licensed facility where the sale will result in a new license being issued, the sale and transfer of property and business shall be subject to both of the following: (1) The licensee shall provide written notice to the department and to each resident or his or her legal representative of the licensee's intent to sell the facility at least 30 days prior to the transfer of the property or business, or at the time that a bona fide offer