§Why CasetextPricing

AYALA v. ANTELOPE VALLEY NEWSPAPERS

Respondent’s Petition for Review

46 Cited authorities

  1. Brinker Rest. Corp. v. Superior Court of San Diego Cnty.

    53 Cal.4th 1004 (Cal. 2012)   Cited 800 times   82 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"

  2. Sav-On Drug Stores, Inc. v. Superior Court

    34 Cal.4th 319 (Cal. 2004)   Cited 514 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Holding that common questions predominated in overtime case brought by chain store managers

  3. Wash. Mut. Bank v. Superior Court of Orange Cty.

    24 Cal.4th 906 (Cal. 2001)   Cited 562 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a choice of law provision may not be disregarded “merely because it may hinder the prosecution of multi-state or nationwide class action or [exclude] nonresident consumers from a California-based class action”

  4. Linder v. Thrifty Oil Co.

    23 Cal.4th 429 (Cal. 2000)   Cited 532 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Reversing and remanding for reconsideration because the court was not "prepared to say that class treatment necessarily is proper," and "upon a fresh look [the trial court] may discern valid reasons for denying" the certification motion

  5. Shamblin v. Brattain

    44 Cal.3d 474 (Cal. 1988)   Cited 751 times
    Determining credibility of declaration supporting relief from default

  6. City of San Jose v. Superior Court

    12 Cal.3d 447 (Cal. 1974)   Cited 708 times
    Holding that government claims procedures are mandatory and failure to file the required claim means the action must be dismissed

  7. S.G. Borello & Sons, Inc. v. Dep't of Indus. Relations

    48 Cal.3d 341 (Cal. 1989)   Cited 444 times   127 Legal Analyses
    Holding that temporary “sharefarmers” were employees entitled to workers' compensation coverage

  8. Cristler v. Express Messenger Systems, Inc.

    171 Cal.App.4th 72 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009)   Cited 188 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Finding trial court did not err by instructing jury "[d]efendant has the obligation to prove that the [p]laintiffs were independent contractors"; holding plaintiffs "[do] not have the burden of disproving such status"

  9. Estrada v. Fedex Ground Package System, Inc.

    154 Cal.App.4th 1 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 166 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that drivers were FedEx's employees in part because “[t]he larger items—trucks and scanners—are obtained from FedEx approved providers, [are] usually financed through FedEx, and [are] repaid through deductions from the drivers' weekly checks”

  10. Jaimez v. Daiohs Usa, Inc.

    181 Cal.App.4th 1286 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010)   Cited 155 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that " [t]he fact that individualized proof of damages may ultimately be necessary does not mean ... that [the plaintiff's] theory of recovery is not amenable to class treatment. A common legal issue predominates the claim, and it makes no sense to resolve it in a piecemeal fashion."

  11. Section 11010 - Order Regulating Wages, Hours, and Working Conditions in the Manufacturing Industry

    Cal. Code Regs. tit. 8 § 11010   Cited 120 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Requiring employers to pay to each employee "not less than the applicable minimum wage for all hours worked in the payroll period"

  12. Rule 8.1115 - Citation of opinions

    Cal. R. 8.1115   Cited 73,846 times

    (a) Unpublished opinion Except as provided in (b), an opinion of a California Court of Appeal or superior court appellate division that is not certified for publication or ordered published must not be cited or relied on by a court or a party in any other action. (b)Exceptions An unpublished opinion may be cited or relied on: (1) When the opinion is relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel; or (2) When the opinion is relevant to a criminal or disciplinary

  13. Rule 8.500 - Petition for review

    Cal. R. 8.500   Cited 337 times

    (a)Right to file a petition, answer, or reply (1) A party may file a petition in the Supreme Court for review of any decision of the Court of Appeal, including any interlocutory order, except the denial of a transfer of a case within the appellate jurisdiction of the superior court. (2) A party may file an answer responding to the issues raised in the petition. In the answer, the party may ask the court to address additional issues if it grants review. (3) The petitioner may file a reply to the answer