§Why CasetextPricing

Reggie Wallace v. Countrywide Home Loans Inc et al

MEMORANDUM in Opposition to MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment as to Proper Calculation of Overtime and Prejudgment Interest 318

34 Cited authorities

  1. Auer v. Robbins

    519 U.S. 452 (1997)   Cited 2,335 times   88 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a federal agency's interpretation of a regulation is controlling where it is not "plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation"

  2. Korea Supply Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp.

    29 Cal.4th 1134 (Cal. 2003)   Cited 1,653 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Holding that plaintiff cannot recover damages under Cal. Bus. Prof. Code § 17200 unless plaintiff has "an ownership interest in the money it seeks to recover"

  3. Long Island Care at Home v. Coke

    551 U.S. 158 (2007)   Cited 332 times   22 Legal Analyses
    Holding authorization for Secretary of Labor to "prescribe necessary rules, regulations, and orders" provided the Department of Labor "with the power to fill [explicit statutory] gaps"

  4. Cortez v. Purolator Air Filtration Products Co.

    23 Cal.4th 163 (Cal. 2000)   Cited 555 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding restitution is "the return of the excess of what the plaintiff gave the defendant over the value of what the plaintiff received"

  5. Overnight Motor Co. v. Missel

    316 U.S. 572 (1942)   Cited 808 times   15 Legal Analyses
    Holding that fluctuating pay plans do not violate the FLSA, even though under such plans "the longer the hours the less are the earnings per hour"

  6. Desmond v. PNGI Charles Town Gaming, L.L.C.

    630 F.3d 351 (4th Cir. 2011)   Cited 285 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that “Overnight Motor provides the appropriate method for calculating the unpaid overtime compensation”

  7. Pineda v. Bank of America, N.A.

    50 Cal.4th 1389 (Cal. 2010)   Cited 157 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that penalties for violation of Labor Code § 203 are not recoverable under the UCL

  8. Valerio v. Putnam Assocs. Inc.

    173 F.3d 35 (1st Cir. 1999)   Cited 182 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the FLSA does not require a clear mutual understanding of "how [an employee's] overtime premiums should be calculated"

  9. Urnikis-Negro v. Am. Family Prop. Servs.

    616 F.3d 665 (7th Cir. 2009)   Cited 132 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that Missel provides the authority for applying the FWW method in calculating overtime premiums

  10. Uphoff v. Elegant Bath, Ltd.

    176 F.3d 399 (7th Cir. 1999)   Cited 168 times
    Holding that FLSA fee shifting provision providing for shifting of "the costs of the action" referred to costs as defined in 28 U.S.C. § 1920

  11. Section 216 - Penalties

    29 U.S.C. § 216   Cited 16,322 times   140 Legal Analyses
    Holding employers liable for “unpaid minimum wages, or their unpaid overtime compensation”

  12. Section 778.114 - Fluctuating Workweek Method of Computing Overtime

    29 C.F.R. § 778.114   Cited 382 times   70 Legal Analyses
    Prescribing total hours, including overtime, as the divisor when employers pay by shift without regard to fluctuating hours

  13. Section 778.113 - Salaried employees-general

    29 C.F.R. § 778.113   Cited 220 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Providing instructions on how to calculate the regular rate of pay for employees paid a weekly salary

  14. Section 778.209 - Method of inclusion of bonus in regular rate

    29 C.F.R. § 778.209   Cited 43 times   22 Legal Analyses

    (a)General rules. Where a bonus payment is considered a part of the regular rate at which an employee is employed, it must be included in computing his regular hourly rate of pay and overtime compensation. No difficulty arises in computing overtime compensation if the bonus covers only one weekly pay period. The amount of the bonus is merely added to the other earnings of the employee (except statutory exclusions) and the total divided by total hours worked. Under many bonus plans, however, calculations