Bearden v. U.S. Borax, Inc.
138 Cal.App.4th 429 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) Cited 37 times 3 Legal AnalysesIn Bearden, supra, 138 Cal.App.4th 429 our colleagues in Division Four reviewed an order dismissing the complaint filed by six mine workers against their employer, U.S. Borax, for, among other alleged Labor Code violations, its failure to allow a second meal period during the 12-hour shifts they were working.
Gerard v. Orange Coast Mem'l Med. Ctr.
9 Cal.App.5th 1204 (Cal. Ct. App. 2017) Cited 4 times 2 Legal AnalysesG048039 03-01-2017 Jazmina GERARD et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. ORANGE COAST MEMORIAL MEDICAL CENTER, Defendant and Respondent. Law Offices of Mark Yablonovich and Mark Yablonovich, Los Angeles; Capstone Law, Glenn A. Danas, Los Angeles and Robert K. Friedl, EI Segundo, for Plaintiffs and Appellants. Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton, Richard J. Simmons, Derek R. Havel, Daniel J. McQueen, Los Angeles, Robert J. Stumpf, Jr., San Francisco, and Karin Dougan Vogel, San Diego, for Defendant
Small v. Superior Court
148 Cal.App.4th 222 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) Cited 10 times 1 Legal AnalysesNo. G037041. February 28, 2007. Appeal from the Superior Court of Orange County, No. 04CC00717, Ronald L. Bauer, Judge. Law Offices of Ellyn Moscowitz and Ellyn Moscowitz for Petitioners. No appearance for Respondent. Atkinson, Andelson, Loya, Ruud Romo, Steven D. Atkinson, Thomas W. Kovacich and Christopher S. Andre for Real Party in Interest Brinderson Contractors, Inc. Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Randall P. Borcherding and Marguerite C. Stricklin, Deputy Attorneys General, for Real Party in
Gerard v. Orange Coast Memorial Medical Center
234 Cal.App.4th 285 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015) Cited 1 times 17 Legal AnalysesG048039 02-10-2015 Jazmina GERARD et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. ORANGE COAST MEMORIAL MEDICAL CENTER, Defendant and Respondent. Law Offices of Mark Yablonovich, Los Angeles, Mark Yablonovich, Los Angeles, Patrick Clifford, Woodland Hills, Neda Roshanian and Joseph Hoff for Plaintiffs and Appellants. Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton, Richard J. Simmons, Derek R. Havel and Daniel J. McQueen, Los Angeles, for Defendant and Respondent. Seyfarth Shaw, Jeffrey A. Berman, James M. Harris and
Section 512 - Meal periods
Cal. Lab. Code § 512 Cited 1,129 times 33 Legal AnalysesImposing these same meal break rules for all employees unless otherwise exempted
Section 516 - Adoption or amendment of working condition orders regarding break and meal periods and days of rest
Cal. Lab. Code § 516 Cited 50 times 4 Legal Analyses(a) Except as provided in Section 512, the Industrial Welfare Commission may adopt or amend working condition orders with respect to break periods, meal periods, and days of rest for any workers in California consistent with the health and welfare of those workers. (b) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), or any other law, including Section 512, the health care employee meal period waiver provisions in Section 11(D) of Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders 4 and 5 were valid and enforceable on and
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)