§Why CasetextPricing

LAFFITTE v. ROBERT HALF INTERNATIONAL (BRENNAN)

Respondents, Robert Half International, Inc., Robert Half of California, Inc., Robert Half Incorporated, and Robert Half Corporation, Answer Brief on the Merits

9 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. Dunk v. Ford Motor Co.

    48 Cal.App.4th 1794 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996)   Cited 110 times
    In Dunk v. Ford Motor Company, supra, 48 Cal.App.4th 1794, 1809, 56 Cal.Rptr.2d 483 (Dunk), in the context of a class action settlement, the court disapproved an attorney fee award the plaintiff attempted to justify as a small percentage of the settlement's value.

  3. Soderstedt v. CBIZ Southern California, LLC

    197 Cal.App.4th 133 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011)   Cited 66 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Affirming order denying certification of a proposed class of accountants; while some accountants asserted their primary duty was to prepare tax returns using standardized computer software, others researched tax issues, performed audits, applied district tax treatments for various types of clients, and served as a primary client contact

  4. In re Vitamin Cases

    110 Cal.App.4th 1041 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003)   Cited 76 times
    Expressing concern with “specter of duplicative and superfluous litigation and hence unnecessary fees and costs” in fee request following settlement of multiple, overlapping private putative class actions

  5. Harris v. Superior Court

    53 Cal.4th 170 (Cal. 2011)   Cited 50 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that DLSE opinion letters are not controlling and need not be followed if they do not contain persuasive logic or if they unreasonably interpret a wage order

  6. Mora v. Big Lots Stores, Inc.

    194 Cal.App.4th 496 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011)   Cited 41 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Rejecting argument that trial court erred in failing to consider survey methodology proposed by plaintiffs' expert to measure the amount of time employees spent on exempt versus nonexempt tasks, in light of that court's reasonable conclusion that common questions of fact or law did not predominate over individual ones

  7. Keller v. Tuesday Morning, Inc.

    179 Cal.App.4th 1389 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009)   Cited 17 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Affirming decertification for lack of predominance where "the question of mandated management policies was subject to class-wide proof, yet the amount of time a manager spent performing these acts and his or her exercise of discretion are matters of individual inquiry"

  8. Laffitte v. Robert Half International Inc.

    231 Cal.App.4th 860 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014)   Cited 4 times   3 Legal Analyses

    No. B249253. 10-29-2014 MARK LAFFITTE et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. ROBERT HALF INTERNATIONAL INC. et al., Defendants and Respondents,DAVID BRENNAN, Plaintiff and Appellant. Law Office of Lawrence W. Schonbrun and Lawrence W. Schonbrun for Plaintiff and Appellant. Law Offices of Kevin T. Barnes, Kevin T. Barnes and Gregg Lander for Plaintiffs and Respondents. Paul Hastings, Judith M. Kline and M. Kirby C. Wilcox for Defendants and Respondents. OPINION SEGAL, J. INTRODUCTION This appeal arises

  9. Rule 8.504 - Form and contents of petition, answer, and reply

    Cal. R. 8.504   Cited 21 times

    (a)In general Except as provided in this rule, a petition for review, answer, and reply must comply with the relevant provisions of rule 8.204. (Subd (a) amended effective January 1, 2007.) (b) Contents of a petition (1) The body of the petition must begin with a concise, nonargumentative statement of the issues presented for review, framing them in terms of the facts of the case but without unnecessary detail. (2) The petition must explain how the case presents a ground for review under rule 8.500(b)