18 Cited authorities

  1. Martinez v. Combs

    49 Cal.4th 35 (Cal. 2010)   Cited 407 times   44 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"
  2. S.G. Borello & Sons, Inc. v. Dep't of Indus. Relations

    48 Cal.3d 341 (Cal. 1989)   Cited 383 times   127 Legal Analyses
    Holding that temporary “sharefarmers” were employees entitled to workers' compensation coverage
  3. Ayala v. Antelope Valley Newspapers, Inc.

    59 Cal.4th 522 (Cal. 2014)   Cited 135 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]"
  4. Aleksick v. 7-Eleven, Inc.

    205 Cal.App.4th 1176 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012)   Cited 87 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that 7-Eleven did not employ its franchisees' employees despite requiring them to use its payroll services
  5. Futrell v. Payday California, Inc.

    190 Cal.App.4th 1419 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010)   Cited 80 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a payroll company, which handled "ministerial tasks," did not exercise control over wages, hours, or working conditions
  6. Vasquez v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

    77 F. Supp. 3d 911 (N.D. Cal. 2015)   Cited 14 times
    Holding that plaintiff had not plausibly alleged the defendant was his employer where the plaintiff did not dispute that the defendant was "simply a holding company that owns shares" in the plaintiff's corporate employer, and merely alleged the two entities were "engaged in a joint enterprise"
  7. Castaneda v. Ensign Group Inc.

    229 Cal.App.4th 1015 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014)   Cited 9 times
    In Castaneda, an employee filed a class action suit alleging the defendant corporation was the alter ego of a rehabilitation center owned by the defendant and asserting its corporate veil should be pierced.
  8. Arredondo v. Delano Farms Co.

    922 F. Supp. 2d 1071 (E.D. Cal. 2013)   Cited 8 times
    Finding a joint employment relationship after considering all of the non-regulatory factors even where the workers were organized into crews and were very mobile
  9. Hammitt v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc.

    19 F. Supp. 3d 989 (S.D. Cal. 2014)   Cited 6 times
    Finding that defendant was not liable for failure to reimburse plaintiff because there was no evidence defendant knew or had reason to know that Plaintiff had incurred business-related expenses
  10. Betancourt v. Advantage Human Resourcing, Inc.

    Case No. 14-cv-01788-JST (N.D. Cal. Sep. 3, 2014)   Cited 5 times

    Case No. 14-cv-01788-JST 09-03-2014 JUAN BETANCOURT, Plaintiff, v. ADVANTAGE HUMAN RESOURCING, INC., Defendant. JON S. TIGAR United States District Judge ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS In this putative class action for unpaid wages and related claims, Defendant Advantage Human Resourcing, Inc. ("Advantage") moves to dismiss Plaintiff Betancourt's complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. For the reasons set forth below, the motion to dismiss is DENIED. I. BACKGROUND

  11. Rule 8.204 - Contents and format of briefs

    Cal. R. 8.204   Cited 3,611 times

    (a) Contents (1) Each brief must: (A) Begin with a table of contents and a table of authorities separately listing cases, constitutions, statutes, court rules, and other authorities cited; (B) State each point under a separate heading or subheading summarizing the point, and support each point by argument and, if possible, by citation of authority; and (C) Support any reference to a matter in the record by a citation to the volume and page number of the record where the matter appears. If any part

  12. Rule 8.520 - Briefs by parties and amici curiae; judicial notice

    Cal. R. 8.520   Cited 2,149 times

    (a)Parties' briefs; time to file (1) Within 30 days after the Supreme Court files the order of review, the petitioner must serve and file in that court either an opening brief on the merits or the brief it filed in the Court of Appeal. (2) Within 30 days after the petitioner files its brief or the time to do so expires, the opposing party must serve and file either an answer brief on the merits or the brief it filed in the Court of Appeal. (3) The petitioner may file a reply brief on the merits or

  13. Rule 8.212 - Service and filing of briefs

    Cal. R. 8.212   Cited 22 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