§Why CasetextPricing

DYNAMEX OPERATIONS WEST v. S.C.

Amicus Curiae Brief of Service Employees International Union, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, International Brotherhood of Teamsters

22 Cited authorities

  1. 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"

  2. Ramirez v. Yosemite Water Co.

    20 Cal.4th 785 (Cal. 1999)   Cited 340 times   17 Legal Analyses
    Holding that when a court evaluates if an employee was primarily engaged in exempt duties for purposes of the administrative exemption to overtime pay, it must consider "how the employee actually spends his or her time" and also "whether the employee's practice diverges from the employer's realistic expectations"

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. Reynolds v. Bement

    36 Cal.4th 1075 (Cal. 2005)   Cited 273 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding that statutes are construed in light of the common law unless the Legislature clearly and unequivocally indicates otherwise

  6. Sara M. v. Superior Court

    36 Cal.4th 998 (Cal. 2005)   Cited 248 times
    Upholding portion of former rule 1460(f)(B) authorizing the juvenile court to terminate reunification services and set the matter for a permanency planning hearing whenever it finds by clear and convincing evidence the parent has failed to contact and visit the child for six months after reunification services have begun

  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. Bartels v. Birmingham

    332 U.S. 126 (1947)   Cited 329 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Determining whether dance bands were independent contractors or employees of dance halls under the Social Security Act ("SSA")

  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. Patterson v. Domino's Pizza, LLC

    60 Cal.4th 474 (Cal. 2014)   Cited 117 times   19 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a franchisor is liable vicariously in tort only "if it has retained or assumed the right of general control over the relevant day-to-day operations at its franchised locations"

  11. Section 203 - Definitions

    29 U.S.C. § 203   Cited 6,769 times   273 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing that "custom or practice" under a collective-bargaining agreement can make changing clothes noncompensable

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

    Cal. R. 8.520   Cited 3,146 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