What is overtime exemption?

Useful Rulings on Overtime Exemption

Recent Rulings on Overtime Exemption

JINGXUAN ZHANG VS HUMMINGBIRD NEST ENTERTAINMENT CORP

(“Hummingbird”) failed to provide him with rest and meal breaks, failed to pay him all wages due, including overtime, and failed to provide him with accurate wage statements. On October 25, 2017, Plaintiff filed a complaint, asserting causes of action against Defendants Hummingbird and Does 1-50 for: Failure to Provide Rest Periods—Cal. Labor Code § 226.7 Failure to Provide Meal Periods—Cal. Labor Code § 226.7 Failure to Pay Minimum Wage—Cal. Labor Code § 1197 Failure to Pay Overtime—Cal.

  • Hearing

    Aug 14, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA VS CHARLES PETERS

Whether Defendant is exempt from the statutes is an evidentiary matter which is not properly considered in the context of a motion for judgment on the pleadings. Insofar as Defendant argues the first and second causes of action are duplicative, the Court is not so convinced. The first cause of action is one for public nuisance, while the second cause of action is one for municipal code violations.

  • Hearing

    Jul 26, 2020

JEFF REINKE VS ELMER ERNESTO LOPEZ PLIEGO ET AL

Whitney was not court-ordered, (3) there should be no filing fees because DOT is exempt as a government entity, and (4) the medical and billing records were unnecessary. (Motion at pp. 2-3.) In Opposition, DOT argues that Security’s Motion is untimely and was required to be filed by February 11, 2020,15 days after they filed the Memorandum of Costs on January 22, 2020. (Oppo. at p. 3.) Here, the instant Motion to Strike/Tax Cost was filed April 6, 2020, nearly three months late. (Oppo. at p. 3.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 13, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

SECURITY NATIONAL INSURANCE CO VS CALIFORNIA DEPT OF TRANSPO

Whitney was not court-ordered, (3) there should be no filing fees because DOT is exempt as a government entity, and (4) the medical and billing records were unnecessary. (Motion at pp. 2-3.) In Opposition, DOT argues that Security’s Motion is untimely and was required to be filed by February 11, 2020,15 days after they filed the Memorandum of Costs on January 22, 2020. (Oppo. at p. 3.) Here, the instant Motion to Strike/Tax Cost was filed April 6, 2020, nearly three months late. (Oppo. at p. 3.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 13, 2020

HECTOR OCHOA VS JET DELIVERY SERVICE, INC.

Plaintiff did not receive adequate training for this new position and was denied the opportunity for overtime pay. On September 23, 2019, Plaintiff was terminated. On April 10, 2020, Plaintiff filed a complaint, asserting causes of action against Defendant and Does 1-50 for: 1. Disability Discrimination in Violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (Gov. Code § 12900, et seq.) 2. Age Discrimination in Violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (Gov. Code § 12900, et seq.) 3.

  • Hearing

    Jul 13, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

GLEN BREGMAN VS. MEDICAL BOARD OF CALIFORNIA

The documents were statutorily exempt from disclosure under the PRA. Specifically, Government Code section 6454, subd. (f), exempts “any investigatory or security files compiled by any other state or local agency for correctional, law enforcement, or licensing purposes.” (Id., § 6254, subd (f) [emphasis added].) Petitioner contends a triable issue of material fact exists whether the Board waived this exemption because: 1) Dr.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

CHRISTINA MENDOZA V. PLANNED PARENTHOOD MAR MONTE, INC., ET AL.

The following class is certified for settlement purposes: All current and former non-exempt, hourly employees of Defendant Planned Parenthood Mar Monte, Inc. (“Defendant”), who worked in the State of California at any time between June 13, 2014 to February 24, 2020. Excluded from the class are the five individuals who submitted timely requests for exclusion. Judgment shall be entered through the filing of this order and judgment. (Code Civ. Proc., § 668.5.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

CORREA V. IL FORNAIO (AMERICA) CORPORATION

Therefore, Plaintiff has a general right to the requested discovery. 16 Defendant argues that SI No. 2 is overbroad in scope because it includes all of 17 Defendant’s employees, even those out of state, and because Plaintiff was only employed as a 18 dishwasher in Defendant’s Burlingame, California location, but he seeks to represent all of 19 Defendants’ non-exempt California employees. 20 Plaintiff appears to be focused on obtaining “discovery pertaining to all non-exempt 21 employees in the State of California

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

ARTURO REYES V. IVARY MANAGEMENT CO., ET AL.

Moreover, applicators are not compensated for the time they spend in transit from their final job sites to the location where they arrive and depart from company property (the “Yard”), resulting in minimum wage and overtime violations. (Id. at ¶ 22.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

VILLAREAL V. MISSION TRAIL WASTE SYSTEMS, INC.

DISCUSSION 11 The case has been settled on behalf of the following class: 12 [A]ll current and former non-exempt sanitation truck drivers employed by Defendant at any time during the Class Period, which Defendant represents to be 13 63 individuals as of October 2019. As discussed in connection with preliminary approval, defendant Mission Trail Waste 16 Systems, Inc. (“Defendant”) will pay a total non-reversionary amount of $750,000.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

WATTS VS T.R.L. SYSTEMS INCORPORATED

Further, even though aggrieved employees are not specifically referenced in the proposed complaint attached to the LWDA letter, the proposed complaint specifies that plaintiff will allege specific labor code violations on behalf of a class identified as current and prior non-exempt employees. Proposed Complaint, ¶¶ 4 and 29. That is sufficient to notify both defendant and the LWDA who plaintiff intended to include as aggrieved employees.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

PAULINA VEGA VS JPMORGAN CHASE BANK NA

BACKGROUND: This PAGA action arises from the JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A’s alleged failure to pay its employees for all hours worked and at the proper rate, failure to record hours, and failure to provide meal and rest periods and overtime compensation.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

CARDOSO VS. DATA CLEAN CORPORATION

The original complaint defined a class of all non-exempt hourly employees. Do the Labor Code violations complained of affect only cleaning technicians? If other non-exempt employees have suffered the same alleged violations, what compensation do they receive from this settlement? Is there a danger that the statute of limitations will run on the claims of non-exempt employees who were members of the putative class in the complaint, but not members of the settlement class? 2.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

TADURAN VS. GLIDEWELL

For purposes of calculating overtime pay owed in a given week, Defendant uses an employee’s Hourly Rate for that week as the regular rate of pay. UPTIME is not factored into the regular rate of pay. As a result, in weeks where the UPTIME rate is higher than the Hourly Rate and overtime is owed, overtime wages earned in that week are underpaid. (UMF 9-10.) Defendant also pays various bonuses which are not included in the regular rate of pay for overtime purposes. (UMF 11-17.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

JUWON LEE VS POL CLOTHING, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, AND DOES 1 THROUGH 250,

Plaintiff further alleges that she and similar aggrieved employees were also denied overtime pay at an overtime rate, were not reimbursed for work-related travel time and expenses for trade shows and did not have their hours properly recorded by Defendant. Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself and other aggrieved employees pursuant to the Private Attorney General Act (“PAGA”).

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

JIANG QI VS BLUESTAR EXPRESS GROUP INC.

Failure to Pay Minimum Hourly Wages and Overtime Wages [Cal. Labor Code §§ 510, 1194] 2. Failure to Provide Meal and Rest Periods [Cal. Labor Code § 226.7] 3. Knowing and Intentional Failure to Comply with Accurate Itemized Employee Wage Statement Provisions [Cal. Labor Code § 226] 4. Waiting Time Penalties [Cal. Labor Code §§ 201, 203] 5. Unfair Competition [Business and Professions Code § 17200 et seq.] 6. Civil Penalties for Labor Code Violations [Cal.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

SIANO VS. PUFFY DELIVERY, INC.

At issue is Siano’s RFP No. 7, which provides: All DOCUMENTS stating or evidencing all wage, overtime and/or double-time payments (including methods of calculation) made to NON-EXEMPT EMPLOYEES (e.g., payroll records, pay stubs, itemized statements pursuant to Labor Code § 226, and DOCUMENTS generally described in Labor Code §§ 226(a) and 1174 and Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders, § 7) during the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

ADOLPH VS UBER TECHNOLOGIES INC.

Plaintiff argues that he is exempt from the FAA because he is a “transportation worker” within the meaning of 9 U.S.C. § 1. He does not, however, provide any evidence of what he does or why he believes he falls within this exception which applies only to a “class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce.” There is no assertion in complaint that he was engaged in foreign or interstate commerce.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

MATTER OF DAVID M GRANAROLI EXEMPT TRUST

Nature of Proceedings: 1st Accounting & Report...

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

HUYNH, ET AL. V. MISSION DE LA CASA NURSING AND REHABILITATION CTR., ET AL.

Defendants argue the Legislature's failure expressly to exempt Elder Abuse actions from section 425.13 obliges us to construe the section as including such actions. In support, they contend that elder abuse, when committed by a health care provider, is “an injury that is directly related to the professional services provided by a health care provider acting in its capacity as such.” (Central Pathology, supra, 3 Cal.4th at p. 191…). Defendants’ argument fails on three counts.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

ROVERE V. PENINSULA CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS BOARD DBA CALTRAIN

The Privette court noted that the effect of such an expansion of the doctrine of peculiar risk was such that it gave “an independent contractor’s employees who incur[red] work-related injuries under the workers’ compensation system… the right to recover tort damages for industrial injuries caused by their employer’s failure to provide a safe working environment—something that is denied to other workers… [thereby] exempt[ing those employees]… from the statutorily mandated limits of workers’ compensation, while

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

MATTER OF DAVID M GRANAROLI NON-EXEMPT TRUST

Nature of Proceedings: 1st Accounting & Report...

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

MATTER OF DAVID M GRANAROLI NON-EXEMPT TRUST

Nature of Proceedings: 1st Accounting & Report Absent objection, the First Accounting will be approved. An Order is needed....

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

MATTER OF DAVID M GRANAROLI EXEMPT TRUST

Nature of Proceedings: 1st Accounting & Report Absent objection, the First Accounting and Report will be approved. An Order is needed....

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

NAJERA VS. TOPH I, LLC

Thus, there is an overall common question of whether Defendant’s policy(ies) and/or system(s) prevented class members from receiving pay for all hours worked, minimum wage, and overtime pay. (Benton v. Telecom Network Specialists, Inc. (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 701, 731; Jaimez v. Daiohs USA, Inc. (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 1286, 1302-03; see e.g. Sanchez Decl., ¶¶ 3; Schupp Decl., ¶ 3; Perez Decl., ¶ 5.) The specific hours worked and amount of overtime owed are damage issues.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 259     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.