§Why CasetextPricing

DYNAMEX OPERATIONS WEST v. S.C.

Amicus Curiae Brief of Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America and California Chamber of Commerce, Supplemental Brief

22 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. Martinez v. Combs

    49 Cal.4th 35 (Cal. 2010)   Cited 478 times   45 Legal Analyses
    Holding that California's wage and hour laws do not impose liability on "individual corporate agents acting within the scope of their agency"

  3. Murphy v. Kenneth Cole Productions Inc.

    40 Cal.4th 1094 (Cal. 2007)   Cited 513 times   19 Legal Analyses
    Holding that California Labor Code claims have a three-year statute of limitations

  4. Morillion v. Royal Packing

    22 Cal.4th 575 (Cal. 2000)   Cited 331 times   29 Legal Analyses
    Holding that compulsory travel time on bus from departure point to work site is compensable

  5. 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

  6. Tidewater Marine Western, Inc. v. Bradshaw

    14 Cal.4th 557 (Cal. 1996)   Cited 292 times   18 Legal Analyses
    Holding that DLSE Enforcement Manual was not entitled to higher level of deference accorded a regulation because it was not adopted consistent with the Administrative Procedures Act's requirements of public notice and comment

  7. Ayala v. Antelope Valley Newspapers, Inc.

    59 Cal.4th 522 (Cal. 2014)   Cited 167 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Holding trial court's finding that "substantial variations in control exist" is "sufficient to justify denying class certification and thus obviate any need for further inquiry [into secondary factors]"

  8. Schachter v. Citigroup Inc.

    47 Cal.4th 610 (Cal. 2009)   Cited 170 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Concluding in dicta that "the shares of restricted stock issued to [plaintiff] also constituted a wage"

  9. Nordstrom Com. Cases

    186 Cal.App.4th 576 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010)   Cited 97 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding that settlements involving either coupons or vouchers are routinely approved as fair, adequate, and reasonable

  10. Aleman v. AirTouch Cellular

    209 Cal.App.4th 556 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012)   Cited 79 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Interpreting split shift Wage Order as a legal matter

  11. Rule 8.212 - Service and filing of briefs

    Cal. R. 8.212   Cited 28 times

    (a)Time to file (1) An appellant must serve and file its opening brief within: (A) 40 days after the record-or the reporter's transcript, after a rule 8.124 election-is filed in the reviewing court; or (B) 70 days after the filing of a rule 8.124 election, if the appeal proceeds without a reporter's transcript. (2) A respondent must serve and file its brief within 30 days after the appellant files its opening brief. (3) An appellant must serve and file its reply brief, if any, within 20 days after