The California Supreme Court in CASTELLANOS v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA (Case: S279622) is presented with the question that does Business and Professions Code section 7451, which was enacted by Proposition 22 (the “Protect App-Based Drivers and Services Act”), conflict with article XIV, section 4 of the California Constitution and therefore require that Proposition 22, by […]

The California Supreme Court in Naranjo v. Spectrum Security Services, Inc. (SC S258966 5/23/22), held that meal breaks are considered wages for the purpose of waiting penalty statute if the employee is not paid when the employment ends with the employer. The Naranjo Court, held that the extra pay for missed breaks constitutes “wages” that must be reported on […]

No prejudice is required in determining whether a party to an arbitration agreement has waived its right to compel the arbitration and stay the action in the court. Morgan v. Sundance, Inc. (US 21–328 5/23/22) Arbitration  Petitioner Robyn Morgan worked as an hourly employee at a Taco Bell franchise owned by respondent Sundance. When applying for […]

We sued Postmates, now Uber Technologies, Inc. in 2017 alleging various labor code violations in a class action and representative action under California Lab. Code §2698 et seq. (otherwise known as Private Attorney General Act or PAGA) The trial court denied Postmates’s petition to compel arbitration of the PAGA claim for civil penalties brought by […]

The plaintiff, in this case, alleged a single cause of action against the former employer under the California Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA). (Lab. Code, § 2698 et seq.) The California Supreme Court in Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles LLC (2014) 59 Cal.4th 348 (Iskanian) and Court of Appeal in Betancourt v. […]

As part of the federal CARES Act, the new Pandemic Unemployment Assistance (PUA) program helps unemployed Californians who are business owners, self-employed, independent contractors, have limited work history, and others not usually eligible for regular state UI benefits who are out of business or services are significantly reduced as a direct result of the pandemic. The […]

In Jones v. Farmers Ins. Exchange (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 986 (“Jones”), the California Court of Appeal held that “[t]he lack of an adequate class representative … does not justify the denial of the certification motion.  Instead, the trial court must allow Plaintiff[[] an opportunity to amend [his] complaint to name a suitable class representative.  [Citation […]