§Why CasetextPricing

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

Petitioner’s Petition for Review

28 Cited authorities

  1. Iskanian v. CLS Transp. L.A., LLC

    59 Cal.4th 348 (Cal. 2014)   Cited 445 times   77 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

  2. Arias v. Superior Court

    46 Cal.4th 969 (Cal. 2009)   Cited 388 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Holding that proof of a Labor Code violation is a prerequisite to recovery of PAGA penalties

  3. Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn

    7 Cal.4th 1 (Cal. 1994)   Cited 496 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Holding that students' consent to drug tests as a condition of participating in athletics barred their privacy claims

  4. American Academy of Pediatrics v. Lungren

    16 Cal.4th 307 (Cal. 1997)   Cited 156 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that parental consent law "intrude upon" a pregnant minor's "protected privacy interest under the California Constitution"

  5. Pioneer Ele. v. Superior Court

    40 Cal.4th 360 (Cal. 2007)   Cited 115 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Concluding that there was no serious invasion of privacy where disclosure of the identity of potential class members did not involve revelation of personal or business secrets, intimate activities, or similar private information, and threatened no undue intrusion into their personal lives

  6. Krinsky v. Doe 6

    159 Cal.App.4th 1154 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 63 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Finding that in the context of an online message board containing "vulgar and insulting" language, a statement that the plaintiff had a "fake medical degree" was obviously intended as ridicule rather than a statement of fact

  7. Belaire-W. Landscape, Inc. v. Superior Court

    149 Cal.App.4th 554 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 63 times   8 Legal Analyses
    In Belaire-West, a California appellate court held that third-party privacy concerns were addressed by a notice informing putative class members that they could opt out if they did not want their contact information disclosed to the plaintiff's attorneys. See Belaire-West, 149 Cal. App. 4th at 561.

  8. Lipton v. Superior Court

    48 Cal.App.4th 1599 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996)   Cited 80 times
    Recognizing that a reserve of money to deal with the claim cannot be equated with an admission of liability or the value of the claim

  9. Johnson v. Superior Court of Los Angeles Co.

    80 Cal.App.4th 1050 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000)   Cited 60 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a physician-patient privilege did not exist where a sperm donor visited sperm bank in order only to sell his sperm and not for diagnosis or treatment of any physical or mental ailment

  10. Puerto v. Superior Court

    158 Cal.App.4th 1242 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 33 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that employees had a legitimate expectation of privacy in their addresses and telephone numbers "in light of employers' usual confidentiality customs and practices"

  11. Section 226

    Cal. Lab. Code § 226   Cited 1,208 times   81 Legal Analyses
    Providing only statutory penalties

  12. Section 2698

    Cal. Lab. Code § 2698   Cited 823 times   26 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

    Cal. Lab. Code § 2699   Cited 699 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Providing that "[a]ny employee who prevails in any action" shall be entitled to reasonable attorney's fees

  14. Section 512

    Cal. Lab. Code § 512   Cited 298 times   25 Legal Analyses
    Imposing these same meal break rules for all employees unless otherwise exempted

  15. Section 166.1

    Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 166.1   Cited 73 times

    Upon the written request of any party or his or her counsel, or at the judge's discretion, a judge may indicate in any interlocutory order a belief that there is a controlling question of law as to which there are substantial grounds for difference of opinion, appellate resolution of which may materially advance the conclusion of the litigation. Neither the denial of a request for, nor the objection of another party or counsel to, such a commentary in the interlocutory order, may be grounds for a

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

    Cal. R. 8.504   Cited 13 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)