Holding a stay, although "theoretically" subject to modification, was a reviewable collateral order because "the district court did not impose a time limit on the stay or note circumstances that might result in its modification"
Holding that plaintiffs could not pursue civil penalties for a Section 558 violation without complying with the pre-filing notice and exhaustion requirements of PAGA
Holding that an employer's "obligation to provide the plaintiffs with an adequate meal period is not satisfied by [shifting responsibility to employees to take their meal breaks], because employers have `an affirmative obligation to ensure that workers are actually relieved of all duty.'" (quoting Wage Order applicable to the transportation industry)
Holding that, when applying state law, this Court follows "the decision of the highest state court," or, in the absence of such a decision and any indication that the highest court would rule differently, "the decisions of the state's intermediate courts"
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.