§Why CasetextPricing

Lockette v. Ross Stores, Inc. et al

MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim Upon Which Relief Can be Granted and for More Definite Statement

14 Cited authorities

  1. Mitsubishi Motors v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth

    473 U.S. 614 (1985)   Cited 4,238 times   44 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Act emphatically favors arbitration

  2. American Title Ins. Co. v. Lacelaw Corp.

    861 F.2d 224 (9th Cir. 1988)   Cited 465 times
    Holding that "statements of fact contained in a brief may be considered admissions of the party in the discretion of the district court"

  3. Sharif v. Wellness Int'l Network, Ltd.

    376 F.3d 720 (7th Cir. 2004)   Cited 215 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the District Court erred in dismissing a motion to compel without prejudice as superfluous to a pending 12(b) motion alleging improper venue

  4. Ballaris v. Wacker Siltronic Corp.

    370 F.3d 901 (9th Cir. 2004)   Cited 128 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that payments for lunch periods fall within the § 207(e) exemption because employees did not work during the lunch period

  5. Lake Communications, Inc. v. ICC Corp.

    738 F.2d 1473 (9th Cir. 1984)   Cited 46 times
    Holding discovery costs resulting from plaintiff’s decision to sue in federal court were insufficient to show prejudice

  6. Davis v. Charoen Pokphand

    302 F. Supp. 2d 1314 (M.D. Ala. 2004)   Cited 12 times
    Rejecting argument from Pilgrim's Pride and Reich because the courts "apply an overly narrow interpretation of the Muscoda definition of work."

  7. Dager v. City of Phoenix

    2:06-cv-01412 JWS (D. Ariz. Oct. 25, 2006)

    2:06-cv-01412 JWS. October 25, 2006 ORDER AND OPINION [Re: Motion at Docket 9] JOHN SEDWICK, District Judge I. MOTION PRESENTED At docket 9 defendant City of Phoenix moved for this court to require plaintiffs to provide a more definite statement of their claims. At docket 11, plaintiffs responded to the motion, and at docket 12, defendant replied in support of its motion for a more definite statement. II. BACKGROUND Plaintiffs filed a complaint on May 31, 2006. The complaint states that plaintiffs

  8. Culver v. Bell Loffland

    146 F.2d 29 (9th Cir. 1945)   Cited 48 times
    In Culver, we had held that the doubling of damages for failure to pay overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act was not a "penalty" for purposes of the California limitation statute.

  9. Rule 12 - Defenses and Objections: When and How Presented; Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; Consolidating Motions; Waiving Defenses; Pretrial Hearing

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 12   Cited 345,982 times   922 Legal Analyses
    Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss

  10. Section 1404 - Change of venue

    28 U.S.C. § 1404   Cited 28,373 times   184 Legal Analyses
    Granting Class Plaintiffs' motion to transfer action in order to "facilitate a unified settlement approval process together with the class action cases in" In re Amex ASR

  11. Section 201 - Short title

    29 U.S.C. § 201   Cited 20,928 times   102 Legal Analyses
    Setting fourteen as the minimum age for most non-agricultural work

  12. Section 216 - Penalties

    29 U.S.C. § 216   Cited 16,373 times   140 Legal Analyses
    Holding employers liable for “unpaid minimum wages, or their unpaid overtime compensation”

  13. Section 785.19 - Meal

    29 C.F.R. § 785.19   Cited 319 times   20 Legal Analyses
    Excluding bona fide lunch breaks from “worktime”

  14. Section 785.18 - Rest

    29 C.F.R. § 785.18   Cited 108 times   21 Legal Analyses

    Rest periods of short duration, running from 5 minutes to about 20 minutes, are common in industry. They promote the efficiency of the employee and are customarily paid for as working time. They must be counted as hours worked. Compensable time of rest periods may not be offset against other working time such as compensable waiting time or on-call time. ( Mitchell v. Greinetz, 235 F. 2d 621, 13 W.H. Cases 3 (C.A. 10, 1956); Ballard v. Consolidated Steel Corp., Ltd., 61 F. Supp. 996 (S.D. Cal. 1945))