§Why CasetextPricing

AUGUSTUS v. ABM SECURITY SERVICES (To be called and continued to the September 29, 2016, calendar.)

Appellant’s Request for Judicial Notice

14 Cited authorities

  1. 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"

  2. Associated Bldrs. Contrs. v. S.F. Airports Commn

    21 Cal.4th 352 (Cal. 1999)   Cited 279 times
    Finding that the requirement that a party be "beneficially interested" is equivalent to the federal "injury in fact" test

  3. Jensen v. BMW of North America, Inc.

    35 Cal.App.4th 112 (Cal. Ct. App. 1995)   Cited 219 times
    Holding that by including "expenses" in the Song Beverly Act's cost provision, the Legislature intended that the provision would not be limited to the costs that are available under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. Section 1033,5, which defines the items that are generally available to prevailing parties

  4. California School of Culinary Arts v. Lujan

    112 Cal.App.4th 16 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003)   Cited 116 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Describing regulations establishing exemption for teachers from the Labor Code's overtime provisions

  5. United Teachers of Los Angeles v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist.

    54 Cal.4th 504 (Cal. 2012)   Cited 19 times
    In United Teachers, a school district approved conversion of an existing public school into a charter school, after which a teachers' union filed grievances claiming that the district had not complied with their collective bargaining agreement's provisions relating to charter school conversions.

  6. Boehm Associates v. Workers' Comp. Appeals

    108 Cal.App.4th 137 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003)   Cited 19 times

    C036712 Filed April 25, 2003 Petition for Writ of Review. Order annulled, WCAB No. EUR 0023064. Nancy Roberts and Robert Feinglass for Petitioner. Capurro, Rocha Walsh and Joseph V. Capurro, as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Petitioner. Hansen LeClerc and Michel C. LeClerc for Respondent International Union of Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees. No appearance for Respondent Workers' Compensation Appeals Board. No appearance for Respondent Wayne Brower. HULL, J. Petitioner Boehm Associates seeks

  7. Thompson v. Scholl

    32 Cal.App. 4 (Cal. Ct. App. 1916)   Cited 4 times

    Civ. No. 2013. November 8, 1916. APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, and from an order denying a new trial. Eugene P. McDaniel, Judge presiding. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. Kendrick Ardis, for Appellant. Haas Dunnigan, for Respondent. CONREY, P. J. — In this action plaintiff seeks to obtain a decree enforcing specific performance of an alleged contract for the sale of real property. The defendant Bessie L. Scholl appeals from the judgment and

  8. Section 541.2 - Job titles insufficient

    29 C.F.R. § 541.2   Cited 519 times   26 Legal Analyses
    Explaining that an employee employed in an "administrative * * * capacity" includes an employee "[w]ho customarily and regularly exercise discretion and independent judgment"

  9. Section 541.1 - Terms used in regulations

    29 C.F.R. § 541.1   Cited 432 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Requiring that an exempt employee's work "includes the customary and regular direction of the work of two or more other employees"

  10. Section 541.102 - Management

    29 C.F.R. § 541.102   Cited 431 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Listing selecting employees, apportioning work, recommending promotions, disciplining employees, and determining techniques or materials to be used as examples of managerial duties

  11. Section 541.3 - Scope of the section 13(a)(1) exemptions

    29 C.F.R. § 541.3   Cited 237 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Defining the scope of the exemptions

  12. Section 541.301 - Learned professionals

    29 C.F.R. § 541.301   Cited 194 times   38 Legal Analyses
    Stating that "bookkeepers . . . generally will not qualify as exempt professionals."

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

    Cal. R. 8.520   Cited 3,189 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

  14. Rule 8.252 - Judicial notice; findings and evidence on appeal

    Cal. R. 8.252   Cited 600 times

    (a)Judicial notice (1) To obtain judicial notice by a reviewing court under Evidence Code section 459, a party must serve and file a separate motion with a proposed order. (2) The motion must state: (A) Why the matter to be noticed is relevant to the appeal; (B) Whether the matter to be noticed was presented to the trial court and, if so, whether judicial notice was taken by that court; (C) If judicial notice of the matter was not taken by the trial court, why the matter is subject to judicial notice