Labor Code Regulations for Minors in the Entertainment Industry

Useful Rulings on Labor Code Regulations for Minors in the Entertainment Industry

Rulings on Labor Code Regulations for Minors in the Entertainment Industry

SILVA VS. THE WALT DISNEY COMPANY

Defendants The Walt Disney Company and Walt Disney Parks & Resorts U.S., Inc. who are named in the Complaint are not identified as Plaintiff’s employer in the First Charge. (Cole v. Antelope Valley Union High School Dist. (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 1505 [“We conclude section 12960 clearly mandates that aggrieved persons set forth in their DFEH complaint the names of the persons alleged to have committed the unlawful discrimination.

  • Hearing

MARTHA ORTIZ VS THE WALT DISNEY COMPANY ET AL

The Walt Disney Company, et al. MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, ALTERNATIVELY, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES MOVING PARTY: Defendants The Walt Disney Company, Walt Disney Studios d/b/a Walt Disney Pictures, and Walt Disney Parks and Resorts U.S., Inc.

  • Hearing

KURT OLDMAN, ET AL. VS TYLER BATES, ET AL.

The Cross-Complaint alleges that Bates suffered reputational damage when he was “forced to explain to the studio and director why one of the people he hired was unwilling to sign customary documents unless the studio altered its arrangement with Bates.” Cross-Compl. ¶ 34.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

STEVE TEPPER ET AL VS ALAN NOELLE ENGINEERING ET AL

The Granada Theater, et al., #16CV00404 (“the Granada case”), Steven Tepper sued The Granada Theater, Santa Barbara Center for Performing Arts, Kate Kurlas, Caren Rager, and Craig Springer. On May 18, 2016, the court ordered the two cases consolidated for all purposes.

  • Hearing

SALLY ANN QUINN VS WALLIS ANNENBERG CENTER, ET AL.

Walt Disney Co. (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 736 [66 Cal. Rptr. 3d 268] (Slesinger). Noble states “it appears that in California the hirer of a detective agency for either a single investigation or for the protection of property, may be liable for the intentional torts of employees of the private detective agency committed in the course of employment.” (Noble, supra, at p. 663, italics added.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Discrimination/Harass

DANIEL J ORISKOVICH AND KATHERINE M ORISKOVICH

There is one minor child of the marriage, Madison b. 4/10/2003.

  • Hearing

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

FRANK PRECIADO VS CORONADO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

Warner Brothers Television Productions (2006) 38 Cal.4th 264, 278–279. Claims for "harassment focuses on situations in which the social environment of the workplace becomes intolerable because the harassment (whether verbal, physical, or visual) communicates an offensive message to the harassed employee." Roby v. McKesson Corp. (2009) 47 Cal.4th 686, 706.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

DANIEL J ORISKOVICH AND KATHERINE M ORISKOVICH

There is one minor child of the marriage, Madison b. 4/10/2003.

  • Hearing

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

XXXXXXXXX ET AL VS TRIPLE HOME CARE AND ADULT SERVICES INC

Sony Pictures Entertainment, Inc. (2005) 129 Cal. App. 4th 1133, 1144 (2005), quoting Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Thurston (1985) 469 U.S. 111, 121 [“the McDonnell Douglas test is inapplicable where the plaintiff presents direct evidence of discrimination.”.) Direct evidence is evidence which proves a fact without inference or presumption. (Trop, supra, 129 Cal.App.4th at 1145.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

ADELINA DELGADO ET AL VS CITY OF PICO RIVERA ET AL

The time and labor required for this litigation appears to justify the fees requested from counsel. Additionally, the risk of loss bore by counsel in relation to the contingency fee agreement present in this matter suggests the fees requested by counsel are warranted. The court finds plaintiffs’ counsel’s request for a higher award is justified. Thus, the $466,620.00 in attorney’s fees sought by counsel is justified on the current record.

  • Hearing

ADELINA DELGADO ET AL VS CITY OF PICO RIVERA ET AL

The time and labor required for this litigation appears to justify the fees requested from counsel. Additionally, the risk of loss bore by counsel in relation to the contingency fee agreement present in this matter suggests the fees requested by counsel are warranted. The court finds plaintiffs’ counsel’s request for a higher award is justified. Thus, the $466,620.00 in attorney’s fees sought by counsel is justified on the current record.

  • Hearing

ANITRA MUHAMMAD VS STUDIOPOLIS INC ET AL

Background In BC598492, on October 21, 2015, plaintiff Antria Muhammad, as guardian ad litem for Kiara Muhammad, a minor, filed a complaint against defendants Disney Character Voices, Inc. and Studiopolis, Inc. for (1) breach of contract, (2) waiting time penalties under Labor Code section 203, and (3) accounting. According to the allegations, defendants failed to timely pay plaintiff’s wages, pay her a certain percentage of merchandising receipts, and render an accounting for their net profits.

  • Hearing

THERESA BRYSON VS. JASON LASSOR

Walt Disney World Co. (M.D.Fla. 1995) 912 F.Supp. 1494 than in Cottrill v. MFA, Inc. (8th Cir. 2006) 443 F.3d 629 because the plaintiffs (except Boyd) had a suspicion that they were being recorded for months before the camera was located and because the manager, Lassor, created an environment where an employee appeared to receive preferential treatment because of Lassor’s interest in that employee.

  • Hearing

  • Judge Ed Weil
  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

BARRON V. GALVIN

He had gone to a movie theater to watch a film. While he was walking in the parking lot of the theater, he saw several young men in a car who seemed suspicious to him. As he walked toward them, he tripped and broke his arm. (Id. at pp. 636-637.) The Court of Appeal found that the referee had erred when he found that the claimant’s injury did not arise out of the course of his employment, since the claimant was acting as a police officer as he attempted to investigate the suspicious men. (Id. at p. 638.)

  • Hearing

SANSANAYE LEONG ARSENESCU VS COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF

Warner Brothers Television Productions (2006) 38 Cal.4th 264, 278–279 [42 Cal. Rptr. 3d 2, 132 P.3d 211].) Moreover, the jury could infer, based on the discrimination evidence, that supervisor Schoener's hostility was “because of … [Roby's] medical condition.” (§ 12940, subd. (j)(1), italics added.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

MARIE ISSA GIL VS SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION – RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE SECTION 6310 Labor Code section 6310 provides that: No person shall discharge or in any manner discriminate against any employee because the employee has done any of the following: (1) Made any oral or written complaint to the division, other governmental agencies having statutory responsibility for or assisting the division with reference to employee safety or health, his or her employer, or his or her representative.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

MARIA ANNA CUPIAL ET AL VS SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY E

“(a) An owner of real property or an owner of any interest in real property subject to a recorded claim of lien, or a direct contractor or subcontractor affected by the claim of lien, that disputes the correctness or validity of the claim may obtain release of the real property from the claim of lien by recording a lien release bond. The principal on the bond may be the owner of the property, the direct contractor, or the subcontractor.

  • Hearing

KIMBERLY DOOLIN VS MANTECA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

D074988) 2020 WL 2394728, Willis argued, among other things, that his statute of limitations for filing his Government Claim was equitably tolled by his retaliation complaint to the Labor Commissioner, rendering his government tort claim timely. (Willis, supra, 2020 WL 2394728, at *4.)

  • Hearing

JEFFREY BARR VS ACTION SALES & METAL CO INC ET AL

Walt Disney Co. (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 201, 216 for the proposition that “[p]romises too vague to be enforced will not support a fraud claim any more than they will one in contract.” For the reasons discussed above, a triable issue of material fact exists as to whether the terms of the contract are too vague to be enforced. Defendants have not demonstrated entitlement to summary adjudication as to this issue.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

JOSHUA MCDONOUGH VS MRS GOOCHS NATURAL FOOD MARKETS INC ET A

Labor Code section 98.6 prohibits retaliation for filing “a bona fide complaint or claim . . . under the jurisdiction of the Labor Commissioner.” (Labor Code § 98.6(a).) Labor Code section 1102.5 prohibits retaliation for Once an employer presents a nonretaliatory reason for the discharge, “[t]he central issue is and should remain whether the evidence as a whole supports a reasoned inference that the challenged action was the product of discriminatory or retaliatory animus.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

ANDUALEM ASEFFA ARAGAW VS GRAND PRIZE LIQUOR INC ET AL

Labor Code Sections 1182.12, 1194, 1194.2, 1197) Labor Code section 1197 provides that the minimum wage for employees fixed by the Labor Commission or any applicable state or local law is the minimum wage to be paid to employees such that the payment of a lower wage than the minimum is unlawful. (Lab. Code, § 1197.) Section 1182.12 sets forth the minimum wage schedule beginning from July 1, 2014, which was set at nine dollars per hour. (See id., § 1182.12.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

AARON GRAY AND KYLEY GRAY

Residence of the minor child If after adequate consultation the parents are unable to reach agreement on the above issues, the parents MUST submit the matter to this Court before he or she determines what is in the best interest of the children regarding the disputed issue during the time that the children is in his or her care. Both parents shall have access to all school and medical records.

  • Hearing

NORMAN COLAVINCENZO V. SHELTERBOX USA, INC., ET AL.

Cause of action for violation of Labor Code section 970.

  • Hearing

JOYCE LOPEZ VS REGENTS OF UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

Warner Brothers Television Productions (2006) 38 Cal.4th 264, 284. But the court does not look at each act, statement or word in isolation. Rather, the “working environment must be evaluated in light of the totality of the circumstances.” Miller v. Department of Corrections (2005) 36 Cal.4th 446, 462.

  • Hearing

DANIA NICOLE MONTERO ET AL VS GLENDALE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL &

This webpage includes a photograph of the Defendant, reviews of his services as an obstetrician, and his hours, which it states are by appointment only. Further, Mr. Ellis states that prior to serving the notice of intent to sue, he asked his secretary to call and verify the address was proper. Mr. Ellis states that she confirmed that the address was correct.

  • Hearing

1 2 3     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we load this page.