Photo of Gregory Knopp

Gregory (Greg) Knopp is a partner in the Labor & Employment Law Department in the Los Angeles office.

Greg defends companies in class and collective actions and other complex disputes. He has argued successfully before state and federal courts across the country and has obtained dismissals of class actions in dozens of high-profile, highly consequential matters.

Greg’s clients range from entertainment companies to prominent retailers to professional sports leagues. He has also worked with financial services and other professional services firms, along with clients in the technology, transportation and healthcare spaces. All look to Greg for his ability to quickly spot legal issues and to determine strategies to maximize advantage.

With more than 20 years of experience in employment litigation, Greg has represented clients in a wide range of employment disputes involving wage and hour issues, issues specific to California employment law, sexual harassment, and arbitration compulsion.

On June 27, 2024, by near-unanimous vote, the California Legislature passed two bills enacting much-needed reform to the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA).  We previously reported on the legislative compromise last week, when the deal was first announced.

The most profound changes are contained in AB 2288, which amended Labor Code § 2699—the beating heart of PAGA.  AB 2288 makes several significant changes to the

Inspired by a push to repeal the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) by ballot measure (which we previously covered here and here), and at the urging of Governor Gavin Newsom, stakeholders have reached an agreement in principle to reform PAGA and avoid a high-stakes showdown come November. If the Legislature passes the compromise into law by June 27, the measure will be pulled from

On March 25, 2024, the California Supreme Court issued its opinion in Huerta v. CSI Electrical Contractors, Case No. S275431, providing additional guidance on compensable “hours worked” under California law.  In a class action asserting wage claims on behalf of contractors at a construction site, the Supreme Court answered three questions certified by the Ninth Circuit as follows:

First, the Court held

On February 14, 2024, California State Senator Lola Smallwood-Cuevas introduced Senate Bill 1137 (“SB 1137”), a bill that would make California the first state to specifically recognize the concept of “intersectionality.” Smallwood-Cuevas has stated that SB 1137 “makes it clear that discrimination not only happens based on one protected class, such as race, gender or age, but any combination thereof.”

Specifically, SB 1137 would amend

The California Supreme Court has issued its much-anticipated decision in Estrada v. Royalty Carpet Mills, Inc., determining whether Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) claims can be dismissed as unmanageable.  The Court affirmed a lower court’s decision, holding that “trial courts lack inherent authority to strike PAGA claims on manageability grounds”—that is, trial courts may not “dismiss [them] with prejudice.”  Slip op. at 1-2.  In

To determine the minimum rate of pay or salary threshold applicable to certain exemptions from overtime regulations under California law, the Department of Industrial Relations (“DIR”) uses the California Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (“CCPI”).  The DIR has announced the 2024 rates (effective January 1, 2024) for the computer software employee exemption and licensed physicians and surgeons exemption

For

On November 8, 2023, the California Supreme Court heard oral argument in Estrada v. Royalty Carpet Mills, Inc., a case that could have profound implications for the future of Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) litigation.  The Court granted review in order to decide whether courts have the power to strike or limit PAGA claims that would prove to be unmanageable at trial.

A prior

A California semiconductor manufacturer cannot pursue in court its claims of trade secret misappropriation against a rival company while simultaneously arbitrating the same claims against the allegedly larcenous employee, a state appeals court recently found.

In Mattson Technology, Inc. v. Applied Materials, Inc., a California Court of Appeal ruled that the trial court erred by not staying Applied Materials’ trade secret misappropriation claims against

The Ninth Circuit recently issued an opinion that signals some movement in the direction away from enforcing employment-related arbitration agreements.

In Miller v. Amazon.com, Case No. 2:21-cv-00204-BJR, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s order denying Amazon’s motion to compel arbitration in a case brought by Amazon Flex delivery drivers who made last-leg deliveries of goods shipped from other states or countries

Under the unfair competition law (UCL), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq., a plaintiff may bring a cause of action for any “unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice.” Generally, a UCL claim will be brought as a violation of rules set out in other laws or may be brought for any practice that is “unfair” even if not statutorily