Intershop Communications AG v. Superior Court, 104 Cal. App. 4th 191 (2002)
Frank Martinez, a California resident, sued his former employer, Intershop Communications, Inc., and its German parent company for breach of a stock options exchange agreement. The exchange agreement contained a choice-of-law (German law) and forum-selection clause (Hamburg, Germany). The trial court denied Intershop’s motion to stay the proceedings pursuant to the doctrine
Park v. Shin, 313 F.3d 1138 (9th Cir. 2002)
Tae Sook Park sued Bong Kil Shin, the Deputy Consul General of the Korean Consulate in San Francisco, and his wife, Mee Sook Shin, for various employment-related claims arising from Park’s tenure as the Shins’ domestic servant. The Shins argued that they were entitled to consular immunity under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations and
Advanced Bionics Corp. v. Medtronic, Inc., 29 Cal. 4th 697 (2002)
Mark Stultz was employed in Minnesota as a senior product specialist for Medtronic, a manufacturer of implantable neurostimulation devices, before resigning his employment and going to work for Advanced Bionics Corporation, one of Medtronic’s competitors located in Sylmar, California. Upon accepting employment with Medtronic, Stultz signed a non-competition agreement, which contained a choice-of-law
Honeywell v. WCAB, 104 Cal. App. 4th 829 (2002)
The Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (“WCAB”) found that Honeywell had breached its duty to provide its employee, William Wagner, with a workers’ compensation claim form after it became “reasonably certain” of Wagner’s alleged psychiatric injury. As a result, the WCAB held that the 90-day period to contest the alleged injury began and expired without a
Collins v. Overnite Transp. Co., 105 Cal. App. 4th 171 (2003)
The truck drivers in this case filed a class action, seeking unpaid overtime compensation from their employer, Overnite Transportation Company, a motor carrier. Overnite responded by filing a demurrer, seeking dismissal of the drivers’ claims on the ground that Wage Order No. 9 provides an exemption for motor carriers such as Overnite. The
Bussard v. Minimed, Inc., 105 Cal. App. 4th 798 (2003)
Barbara Bussard was injured when Irma Hernandez, a Minimed clerical employee, rear-ended Bussard, who was stopped at a red light. Hernandez was on her way home after she became ill at work the day after Minimed had fumigated its premises in order to eliminate a flea infestation. Bussard sued Minimed on the grounds that
Opinion of Att’y Gen. Bill Lockyer, No. 02-213, 2003 WL 174019 (Jan. 24, 2003)
In this opinion, the California Attorney General determined that employees who are residents of and employed in California are not entitled to the employment-related benefits established under California Military & Veterans Code § 395.05 for leaves of absence occasioned by service in another state’s militia. The Attorney General observed that
Rivero v. AFSCME, AFL-CIO, 105 Cal. App. 4th 913 (2003)
David Rivero was a supervisor of janitors at the International House at UC Berkeley before his employment was terminated when he refused to accept a demotion to dishwasher and pot scrubber in the International House’s kitchen. Rivero sued his union, the AFSCME, for libel, slander and intentional infliction of emotional distress, among other things,
Simo v. UNITE-SW, 322 F.3d 602 (9th Cir. 2003)
Twenty-five garment workers brought suit against their union and its officials after the union allegedly engaged in secondary pressure to remove work from their factory. Among other things, the workers alleged that the union had intentionally inflicted emotional distress upon them. The Ninth Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of the union on the emotional
Meyer v. Holley, 537 U.S. 280, 123 S. Ct. 824 (2003)
Ellen and David Holley, an interracial couple, sued Triad, Inc., a Triad employee and David Meyer (Triad’s owner) for violation of the federal Fair Housing Act (“FHA”) after the Triad employee allegedly prevented the Holleys from buying a house in Twenty-Nine Palms, California for racially discriminatory reasons. At issue in the case was