27 Cited authorities

Brinker Rest. Corp. v. Superior Court of San Diego Cnty.
53 Cal.4th 1004 (Cal. 2012) Cited 819 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"
Trujillo v. North County Transit Dist.
63 Cal.App.4th 280 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998) Cited 482 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that the statutory language of § 12940 does not "support recovery on . . . a private right of action where there has been a specific factual finding that [the alleged] discrimination or harassment actually occurred at the plaintiffs's workplace"
Taylor v. Nabors Drilling USA, LP
222 Cal.App.4th 1228 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014) Cited 181 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that California trial court's failure to "specify the factors it had considered" when deciding whether to apply fee multiplier did "not compel a reversal"
Myers Building Industries, Ltd. v. Interface Technology, Inc.
13 Cal.App.4th 949 (Cal. Ct. App. 1993) Cited 263 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding indemnification clause did not support award of attorney fees to prevailing party in action between parties to the contract
Shaw v. Hughes Aircraft Co.
83 Cal.App.4th 1336 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000) Cited 190 times
Concluding jury's finding there was no breach of contract was irreconcilable with finding that defendant breached covenant of good faith and fair dealing
Bell v. Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft
181 Cal.App.4th 1108 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) Cited 95 times
Reviewing grant of new trial based on "[i]rregularity in the proceedings" for abuse of discretion
Bufil v. Dollar Financial Group, Inc.
162 Cal.App.4th 1193 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) Cited 91 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that the claim of a distinct subclass cannot be precluded by collateral estoppel
Bradley v. Networkers International, LLC
211 Cal.App.4th 1129 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013) Cited 63 times
Holding meal and rest break claims should have been certified where, inter alia, "plaintiffs presented evidence that under Networkers' uniform practice, none of the workers was provided, or given authorization to take, the required meal or rest breaks" and defendant "acknowledged it did not have a policy and did not know if the employees took meal or rest breaks"
Fuller-Austin Insulation Co. v. Highlands Ins. Co.
135 Cal.App.4th 958 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) Cited 74 times
Finding no forfeiture where trial court had refused plaintiff's request to include a question on reasonableness in special verdict
Shapiro v. Prudential Property & Casualty Co.
52 Cal.App.4th 722 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997) Cited 69 times
Styling a request as a motion to vacate, rather than a motion for new trial, was of no consequence
Section 657 - Causes for which new or further trial granted
Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 657 Cited 2,130 times
In section 657 the Legislature has said to the trial courts, "You must follow certain specific steps in granting a motion for new trial"; it has not said, "You need not follow these steps unless your failure to do so would actually harm the litigant against whom the motion is granted."

Felczer vs. Apple Inc

27 Cited authorities

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"

Holding that the statutory language of § 12940 does not "support recovery on . . . a private right of action where there has been a specific factual finding that [the alleged] discrimination or harassment actually occurred at the plaintiffs's workplace"

Holding that California trial court's failure to "specify the factors it had considered" when deciding whether to apply fee multiplier did "not compel a reversal"

Holding indemnification clause did not support award of attorney fees to prevailing party in action between parties to the contract

Concluding jury's finding there was no breach of contract was irreconcilable with finding that defendant breached covenant of good faith and fair dealing

Reviewing grant of new trial based on "[i]rregularity in the proceedings" for abuse of discretion

Holding that the claim of a distinct subclass cannot be precluded by collateral estoppel

Finding no forfeiture where trial court had refused plaintiff's request to include a question on reasonableness in special verdict

Styling a request as a motion to vacate, rather than a motion for new trial, was of no consequence

In section 657 the Legislature has said to the trial courts, "You must follow certain specific steps in granting a motion for new trial"; it has not said, "You need not follow these steps unless your failure to do so would actually harm the litigant against whom the motion is granted."