For years, federal courts in California have been inundated with wage and hour class actions. Because these cases often clogged district court dockets for months (and, sometimes, even years) on end, the Central District of California issued the former Local Rule 23-3, which set a 90-day deadline to file a motion for class certification from the filing of a complaint in or removal of an
We invite you to review our newly-posted March 2020 California Employment Law Notes, a comprehensive review of the latest and most significant developments in California employment law. The highlights include:
Hance v. Super Store Indus., 44 Cal. App. 5th 676 (2020)
The attorneys who represented the employees in a class action filed a motion with the trial court for approval of a settlement of the action and also for an award of attorneys’ fees and a division of those fees among the lawyers in accordance with a fee division agreement that had been
Grande v. Eisenhower Med. Ctr., 44 Cal. App. 5th 1147 (2020)
Lynn Grande was assigned through a temporary staffing agency (FlexCare) to work as a nurse at Eisenhower Medical Center. Grande was a named plaintiff in a class action prosecuted against FlexCare in which she alleged she had not received her required meal and rest breaks, wages for certain periods she had worked
Gulf Offshore Logistics, LLC v. Superior Court, 2020 WL 772610 (Cal. Ct. App. 2020)
Non-California resident crew members of the “Adele Elise” (a vessel that provides services to oil platforms located off the coast of California) filed this putative class action alleging multiple violations of California wage and hour law. The owner/operators of the vessel (all of whom are based in Louisiana) petitioned the
We invite you to review our newly-posted January 2020 California Employment Law Notes, a comprehensive review of the latest and most significant developments in California employment law. The highlights include:
Ridgeway v. Walmart Inc., 2020 WL 55073 (9th Cir. 2020)
In this class action, truckers for Wal-Mart alleged they should have been but were not paid for layovers, rest breaks and inspections. The district court determined and the Ninth Circuit affirmed that the time drivers spent on layovers is compensable if Wal-Mart exercised control over the drivers during those breaks – “Wal-Mart’s