§Why CasetextPricing

MENDOZA v. NORDSTROM

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit’s Request to Answer Question of State Law

12 Cited authorities

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

    53 Cal.4th 1004 (Cal. 2012)   Cited 799 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. People v. Roberts

    2 Cal.4th 271 (Cal. 1992)   Cited 388 times
    Concluding that the record and the jury's "careful consideration of its penalty verdict" demonstrated that the defendant received an individualized determination of culpability

  3. People v. Scott

    58 Cal.4th 1415 (Cal. 2014)   Cited 169 times
    Concluding in the context of similar language in Proposition 36 that “a defendant is ‘sentenced’ when a judgment imposing punishment is pronounced even if execution of the sentence is then suspended”

  4. Klein v. U.S.

    537 F.3d 1027 (9th Cir. 2008)   Cited 16 times
    Holding that "the Ninth Circuit is bound by the California Supreme Court's interpretation of California law" with respect to a certified question

  5. Kilby v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc.

    739 F.3d 1192 (9th Cir. 2013)   Cited 10 times   2 Legal Analyses
    In Kilby, the court explained that the wage order does not include a definition of the phrase “nature of the work” as that phrase appears in subdivision 14 of the wage order.

  6. Section 512 - Meal periods

    Cal. Lab. Code § 512   Cited 1,129 times   33 Legal Analyses
    Imposing these same meal break rules for all employees unless otherwise exempted

  7. Section 1858 - Office of judge in construction of statute or instrument

    Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1858   Cited 889 times
    Interpreting statutes

  8. Section 551 - Day of rest for laborers

    Cal. Lab. Code § 551   Cited 31 times   18 Legal Analyses

    Every person employed in any occupation of labor is entitled to one day's rest therefrom in seven. Ca. Lab. Code § 551 Enacted by Stats. 1937, Ch. 90.

  9. Section 552 - Maximum days of work for laborers

    Cal. Lab. Code § 552   Cited 27 times   4 Legal Analyses

    No employer of labor shall cause his employees to work more than six days in seven. Ca. Lab. Code § 552 Enacted by Stats. 1937, Ch. 90.

  10. Section 556 - Inapplicability to part-time employers

    Cal. Lab. Code § 556   Cited 5 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Setting forth an exemption from sections 551 and 552

  11. Section 513 - Makeup work time

    Cal. Lab. Code § 513   Cited 3 times
    Prohibiting an employer from “encouraging or otherwise soliciting” a request for makeup work time

  12. Rule 8.548 - Decision on request of a court of another jurisdiction

    Cal. R. 8.548   Cited 208 times

    (a)Request for decision On request of the United States Supreme Court, a United States Court of Appeals, or the court of last resort of any state, territory, or commonwealth, the Supreme Court may decide a question of California law if: (1) The decision could determine the outcome of a matter pending in the requesting court; and (2) There is no controlling precedent. (Subd (a) amended effective January 1, 2007.) (b)Form and contents of request The request must take the form of an order of the requesting