§Why CasetextPricing

WILLIAMS v. S.C. (MARSHALLS OF CA)

Amicus Curiae Brief of Consumer Attorneys of California

27 Cited authorities

  1. AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion

    563 U.S. 333 (2011)   Cited 3,739 times   601 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a ban on collective-action waivers in those contracts worked to "disfavor arbitration"

  2. Kwikset Corp. v. Superior Court

    51 Cal.4th 310 (Cal. 2011)   Cited 1,558 times   27 Legal Analyses
    Holding "the standards for establishing standing under section 17204 and eligibility for restitution under section 17203 are wholly distinct"

  3. In re Tobacco II Cases

    46 Cal.4th 298 (Cal. 2009)   Cited 1,202 times   35 Legal Analyses
    Holding class representatives had standing to challenge common marketing of cigarettes despite differences in the advertisements or statements on which class members relied

  4. 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"

  5. Iskanian v. CSL Transportation Los Angeles, LLC

    59 Cal.4th 348 (Cal. 2014)   Cited 689 times   144 Legal Analyses
    Holding that arbitration provisions banning class-action litigation or collective arbitration of employment-related claims are enforceable under the NLRA and the FAA's saving clause, but also holding that arbitration provisions banning representative claims under California's Private Attorneys General Act violates that Act

  6. Aryeh v. Canon Business Solutions, Inc.

    55 Cal.4th 1185 (Cal. 2013)   Cited 667 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[i]nterpretations of federal antitrust law are at most instructive, not conclusive, when construing the Cartwright Act, given that the Cartwright Act was modeled not on federal antitrust statutes but instead on statutes enacted by California's sister states around the turn of the 20th century."

  7. Directv, Inc. v. Imburgia

    577 U.S. 47 (2015)   Cited 175 times   41 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the “law of your state” excluded state laws that, after the formation of the contract at issue—and after the initiation of the lawsuit at issue—were held by the Supreme Court to be preempted by the FAA

  8. Arias v. Superior Court (Angelo Dairy)

    46 Cal.4th 969 (Cal. 2009)   Cited 579 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Holding that proof of a Labor Code violation is a prerequisite to recovery of PAGA penalties

  9. Discover Bank v. Superior Court

    36 Cal.4th 148 (Cal. 2005)   Cited 476 times   70 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, under some circumstances, class action waivers in consumer arbitration agreements are unconscionable

  10. Sakkab v. Luxottica Retail N. Am., Inc.

    803 F.3d 425 (9th Cir. 2015)   Cited 223 times   25 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Federal Arbitration Act did not preempt PAGA because it is a "form of qui tam " action

  11. Section 17200 - Unfair competition defined

    Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200   Cited 17,794 times   315 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting unlawful business practices

  12. Section 2698 - Title of part

    Cal. Lab. Code § 2698   Cited 1,541 times   36 Legal Analyses

    This part shall be known and may be cited as the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004. Ca. Lab. Code § 2698 Added by Stats 2003 ch 906 (SB 796), s 2, eff. 1/1/2004.

  13. Section 2699 - Civil penalty; civil action by aggrieved employee to recover

    Cal. Lab. Code § 2699   Cited 1,288 times   33 Legal Analyses
    Providing that "[a]ny employee who prevails in any action" shall be entitled to reasonable attorney's fees

  14. 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

  15. Rule 8.208 - Certificate of Interested Entities or Persons

    Cal. R. 8.208   Cited 17 times

    (a)Purpose and intent The California Code of Judicial Ethics states the circumstances under which an appellate justice must disqualify himself or herself from a proceeding. The purpose of this rule is to provide justices of the Courts of Appeal with additional information to help them determine whether to disqualify themselves from a proceeding. (b)Application This rule applies in appeals in civil cases other than family, juvenile, guardianship, and conservatorship cases. (Subd (b) adopted effective