§Why CasetextPricing

Matamoros et al v. Starbucks Corporation

MOTION for Summary Judgment

17 Cited authorities

  1. Somers v. Converged Access, Inc.

    454 Mass. 582 (Mass. 2009)   Cited 120 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that employer was liable under the Wage Act even when it in good faith classified employee as an independent contractor instead of an employee

  2. Difiore v. American Airlines, Inc.

    454 Mass. 486 (Mass. 2009)   Cited 91 times
    Applying the Tip Statute, M.G.L. c. 149 § 152A

  3. Smith v. Winter Place LLC

    447 Mass. 363 (Mass. 2006)   Cited 52 times
    Interpreting Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 149, § 148A

  4. Commissioner of Revenue v. Cargill, Incorporated

    429 Mass. 79 (Mass. 1999)   Cited 58 times   1 Legal Analyses

    SJC-07895. February 1, 1999. March 1, 1999. Present: Wilkins, C.J., Abrams, Lynch, Greaney, Fried, Marshall, Ireland, JJ. Taxation, Investment tax credit; Corporation; Excise; Appellate Tax Board: findings. Statute, Construction. The Appellate Tax Board correctly concluded that the plain language of G.L.c. 63 § 31A (a), which allows an investment tax credit against any excise tax due under G.L.c. 63 §§ 32, 39, for property in the Commonwealth owned by a corporation "primarily engaged in agriculture

  5. Cooney v. Compass Group

    69 Mass. App. Ct. 632 (Mass. App. Ct. 2007)   Cited 23 times
    Rejecting argument that Tips Act should not be applied where it would create seemingly unfair "windfall" to plaintiffs and stating that, in creating Tips Act as a "type of 'strict liability' statute, "the Legislature must be presumed to have factored into its calculus the risk of such results"

  6. Andrews v. Dubois

    888 F. Supp. 213 (D. Mass. 1995)   Cited 35 times
    Holding that for purposes of a willful violation analysis, it is not dispositive that the FLSA applies and upper managers are aware of the FLSA's requirements

  7. Chau v. Starbucks Corp.

    174 Cal.App.4th 688 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009)   Cited 11 times   8 Legal Analyses
    In Chau, we assumed without deciding, that section 351 may serve as a predicate to an alleged violation of the UCL. (Chau, supra, 174 Cal.App.4th at p. 691, fn. 2; see generally Cel-Tech Communications, Inc. v. Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Co. (1999) 20 Cal.4th 163, 180 ["By proscribing 'any unlawful' business practice, '[Business & Professions Code, ] section 17200 "borrows" violations of other laws and treats them as unlawful practices' that the unfair competition law makes independently actionable."].)

  8. Hedum v. Starbucks Corp.

    546 F. Supp. 2d 1017 (D. Or. 2008)   Cited 5 times

    No. CV 07-0024-MO. February 7, 2008. Craig A. Crispin, Iayesha E.J. Smith, Crispin Employment Lawyers, Portland, OR, for Plaintiff. Calvin L. Keith, Renee E. Starr, Perkins Coie, LLP, Portland, OR, for Defendant. OPINION AND ORDER MOSMAN, District Judge. Plaintiff Alicia Hedum brings this employment action against her former employer, Starbucks Corporation ("Starbucks"), for religious discrimination, retaliation, workers' compensation discrimination, and wrongful discharge. Ms. Hedum, a member of

  9. Bay State Gas Co. v. Local No. 273, Utility Wkrs. U

    415 Mass. 72 (Mass. 1993)   Cited 8 times

    March 11, 1993. April 22, 1993. Present: LIACOS, C.J., NOLAN, LYNCH, O'CONNOR, GREANEY, JJ. Arbitration, Collective bargaining, Parties, Judicial enforcement of summons. Statute, Construction. Neither G.L.c. 150C, governing collective bargaining agreements to arbitrate, nor G.L.c. 233, setting forth procedures for summoning witnesses in civil, criminal, and special tribunal proceedings, provides for judicial enforcement of summonses issued by a party in a labor arbitration. [73-76] CIVIL ACTION commenced

  10. Sheridan v. Intern. Broth. Elec. Workers, Local 455

    940 F. Supp. 368 (D. Mass. 1996)

    Civil Action No. 95-30222-MAP. September 5, 1996. Daniel J. Sheridan, Sheridan Sheridan, South Hadley, MA, Bruce N. Cameron, National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, Springfield, VA, for Plaintiff. John Connor, Marshall T. Moriarty, Moriarty and Connor, Springfield, MA, for Defendant. PONSOR, District Judge. Upon de novo review the report and recommendation is adopted in its entirety. Defendant's motion is DENIED, and plaintiff's ALLOWED. These rulings dispose of all cognizable issues. Moreover

  11. Rule 56 - Summary Judgment

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 56   Cited 329,994 times   158 Legal Analyses
    Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit

  12. Section 196-D - Gratuities

    N.Y. Lab. Law § 196-D   Cited 170 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Stating some exceptions not relevant here

  13. Section 351 - Property of employee

    Cal. Lab. Code § 351   Cited 105 times   25 Legal Analyses
    Covering gratuities

  14. Section 149:152A - Payment to, or retention by, employer of tips to employees; contract for payment

    Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 149 § 152A   Cited 76 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Defining a "[t]ip" as "a sum of money, including any amount designated by a credit card patron, a gift or a gratuity, given as an acknowledgment of any service performed by a wait staff employee, service employee, or service bartender"

  15. Section 541.1 - Terms used in regulations

    29 C.F.R. § 541.1   Cited 432 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Requiring that an exempt employee's work "includes the customary and regular direction of the work of two or more other employees"

  16. Section 541.102 - Management

    29 C.F.R. § 541.102   Cited 431 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Listing selecting employees, apportioning work, recommending promotions, disciplining employees, and determining techniques or materials to be used as examples of managerial duties