Hicks v. PGA Tour, Inc., 897 F.3d 1109 (9th Cir. 2018)

Professional golf caddies sued the PGA Tour, contending they should not be compelled to wear bibs featuring advertising sold by the Tour and local hosts of the PGA tournaments.  The caddies allege contract, quasi-contract, publicity and unfair competition claims under California law, a false endorsement claim under the Lanham Act and antitrust

Lacagnina v. Comprehend Sys. Inc., 25 Cal. App. 5th 955 (2018)

David Lacagnina sued his former employer for fraud, breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and “theft of labor by false pretenses” in violation of Cal. Pen. Code §§ 484 and 496.  The jury awarded $556,446 in damages, including $226,446 in damages for fraud and

Monster Energy Co. v. Schechter, 26 Cal. App. 5th 54 (2018)

The attorneys for two individuals who had sued Monster Energy Company signed and approved as to “content and form” a confidential settlement agreement between the individuals and Monster.  During an interview with a reporter for lawyersandsettlements.com, one of the plaintiffs’ attorneys disclosed information that was subject to the confidentiality provision of the

King v. CompPartners, Inc., 2018 WL 4017874 (Cal. S. Ct. 2018)

Two physician-utilization reviewers acting on behalf of Kirk King’s employer determined that a treatment that had been recommended for King (an employee who had suffered an injury covered by workers’ compensation) was not “medically necessary” and decertified the prescription without providing for a weaning regimen.  Upon being denied the prescription, King suffered a

Jones v. Sorenson, 25 Cal. App. 5th 933 (2018)

Homeowner Danita Sorenson hired a gardener (“Odette Miranda dba Designs by Leo”) to work on her property, and Miranda hired Mary E. Jones to help.  Jones was injured when she fell from a ladder while trimming a tree that was at least 15 feet tall.  Jones sued Sorenson, claiming the work required a license

Troester v. Starbucks Corp., 5 Cal. 5th 829 (2018)

In this opinion, the California Supreme Court answered a legal question from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit:  “Does the federal Fair Labor Standards Act’s de minimis doctrine…apply to claims for unpaid wages under California Labor Code sections 510, 1194 and 1197?”  The California Supreme Court answered the question as

Rodriguez v. Taco Bell Corp., 896 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 2018)

In this putative class action, employees challenged a special offer that Taco Bell provided to its employees:  They could receive discounted meals and complimentary soft drinks so long as they ate the discounted meals on the premises of the restaurant.  On behalf of the putative class, Bernardina Rodriguez claimed the employees should

Nishiki v. Danko Meredith, APC, 25 Cal. App. 5th 883 (2018)

Taryn Nishiki worked as office manager and paralegal for a law firm before resigning her employment via email on Friday, November 14, 2014.  At the time of her resignation, Nishiki was owed $2,880.31 for her accrued but unused vacation time.  On Tuesday, November 18, 2014, the firm mailed Nishiki a handwritten check

Harris v. County of Orange, 2018 WL 4211161 (9th Cir. 2018)

This case arises from a restructuring of two benefit plans that the County of Orange provides to its retirees.  The retirees allege they have an implied contractual right to receive the benefits provided to them throughout their retirement.  Although the district court dismissed the retirees’ breach of contract claim, the Ninth Circuit

Martinez v. Landry’s Rest., Inc., 2018 WL 4091279 (Cal. Ct. App. 2018)

The trial court dismissed this putative class action due to plaintiffs’ failure to bring it to trial within five years as required by the Code of Civil Procedure.  The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by failing to exclude from its calculation of the