What is overtime exemption?

Useful Rulings on Overtime Exemption

Recent Rulings on Overtime Exemption

SHEILA I¿IGUEZ VS BENIHANA MARINA CORP.

Plaintiff Ari Gold’s action is on behalf of “other current and former employees who worked for Defendants in California as non-exempt, hourly employees at a restaurant location and against whom one or more violations of any provision in Division 2 Part 2 Chapter 1 of the Labor Code or any provision regulating hours and days of work in the applicable Industrial Welfare Commission (“IWC”) Wage Order were committed, as set forth in this complaint, at any time between one year prior to the filing of this complaint

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

DOMINGO DE LA CRUZ VS LA CORONA RESTAURANT, A BUSINESS ENTITY OF UNKNOWN FORM, ET AL.

BACKGROUND: Plaintiff, formerly employed starting on July 1, 2016 as a dishwasher, cook, cashier, and maintenance worker for Defendants, brings this action to allege that Plaintiff did not receive meal periods or overtime pay. (Complaint, ¶¶17-22.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

ERIKA COLMENARES VS LAS PALMITAS FRESH FRUIT INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

for (1) sexual harassment/hostile work environment; (2) discrimination based upon sex/gender; (3) discrimination based upon disability; (4) failure to accommodate; (5) failure to engage in the interactive process; (6) retaliation; (7) failure to take all reasonable steps to prevent harassment, discrimination, and retaliation; (8) retaliation; (9) intentional infliction of emotional distress; (10) violation of rest period law; (11) violation of meal period law; (12) violation of wage and hour laws – unpaid overtime

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

CATHERINE M PACAS VS MANINDER KAUR

The only factual issues in dispute concern Labor Code violations: whether or not Defendant has failed to pay Plaintiff overtime wages (first cause of action); whether or not Defendant has failed to pay Plaintiff the minimum wage (second cause of action); and whether or not Defendant has converted tips that should have been paid to Plaintiff (third cause of action). Lastly, on July 15, 2020, the Court deemed that Plaintiff’s Requests for Admission were deemed admitted.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

MARIA DE LOS ANGELES RAMIREZ VS PROLAND MANAGEMENT COMPANY L

Sixth Cause of Action: Failure to Pay Overtime Wages Plaintiff’s sixth cause of action alleges that she is entitled to overtime wages pursuant to Labor Code sections 510 and 1194.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

PEDRO SEDANO GOMEZ , ET AL. VS RUBEN VALENZUELA

BACKGROUND Plaintiffs filed the operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) alleging causes of action for: (1) failure to pay wages; (2) failure to provide meal periods; (3) failure to provide rest periods; (4) failure to pay overtime wages; (5) failure to pay wages due upon termination—waiting time penalties; (6) failure to issue accurate itemized wage statements; and (7) unlawful/unfair business practices.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

GLEASON V. COUNTY OF ORANGE

The Legislature did not exempt from immunity any trails that might be part of the street and highway system in general. As in Carroll, we conclude that a Class I Bikeway is a ‘trail’ within the definition of section 831.4, subdivision (b).” Amberger-Warren v.

  • Hearing

MH PILLARS LTD VS PAYMENTWORLD LIMITED ET AL

All contracts which have for their object, directly or indirectly, to exempt anyone from responsibility for his own fraud, or willful injury to the person or property of another, or violation of law, whether willful or negligent, are against the policy of the law. (Civ. Code § 1668.) Where the object of the contract is illegal, courts generally will not enforce it or lend assistance to a party to a party who seeks to benefit from an illegal act. (Yuba Cypress Housing Partners, Ltd. v.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

BRIAN SANDERS VS TORRANCE POLICE DEPARTMENT

Assuming arguendo that Petitioner may be entitled to a judicial declaration, Respondent argues that the requested information was exempt under Government Code sections 6255(a) and 6254(f) at the time the request was made in August 2019 and was properly withheld at that time.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

LOS ANGELES TIMES COMMUNICATIONS LLC VS COUNTY OF LA

On February 23, 2018, the County responded to The Times’ CPRA request by stating “Although we have determined there are disclosable records to your request, these records contain information exempt from disclosure based on the following specific exemptions: ….” (Pet. ¶ 36, Exh. M; Aviles Decl. ¶ 3, Exh. B.)

  • Hearing

GREGORY LUCAS VS CITY OF POMONA

The Guidelines list of classes of projects which necessarily will not have a significant effect on the environment and are exempt from CEQA. §21084; Guidelines §15300. A project is only exempt from CEQA “[w]here it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment.” Guidelines §15061(b)(3); Dunn-Edwards Corporation v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District, (1992) 9 Cal.App.4th 644, 656.

  • Hearing

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

The Guidelines list of classes of projects which necessarily will not have a significant effect on the environment and are exempt from CEQA. §21084; Guidelines §15300. A project is only exempt from CEQA “[w]here it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment.” Guidelines §15061(b)(3); Dunn-Edwards Corporation v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District, (1992) 9 Cal.App.4th 644, 656.

  • Hearing

JUAN CARLOS RODRIGUEZ INDIVIDUALLY AND AS SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST FOR CELIA VAZQUEZ VS. KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN INC

Therefore, Defendants are exempt from the formatting and language requirements of CCP section 1295(a)-(b). Defendants have shown the existence of an enforceable arbitration agreement that applies to all of the claims at issue, and Plaintiff's arguments in opposition lack merit. Plaintiff's arguments in opposition lack merit, there is no waiver, and Plaintiff has failed to show grounds for rescission. Accordingly, Defendants' motion to compel arbitration is GRANTED. II.

  • Hearing

RAMIREZ VS BROWN HEARING RE MOTION FOR SUMMARY

Proper Solutions performs the following functions of a staffing firm: recruit, hire, assign, orient, counsel, discipline, discharge employees; make legally-required disclosures; establish, calculate, and pay wages and overtime; exercise human resources supervision of employees; and withhold, remit and report payroll taxes and charges for programs that Proper Solutions is legally required to provide. (UMF 18.) Defendant Joshua Brown was hired by Proper Solutions on January 30, 2017. (UMF 23.)

  • Hearing

LAGUNA GREENBELT INC VS. COUNTY OF ORANGE

First, the Court answered three of the primary issues raised by these cases when it granted the County's motion for summary judgment and issued a judicial declarafion that: (1) the County's parcels and development plans are not exempt from Irvine's general plan and zoning ordinances; (2) the County's general plans and zoning ordinances do not apply to the County's parcels; and (3) Measure W does not apply to the parcels.

  • Hearing

CAL FIRE LOCAL 2881 VS. CALIFORNIA STATE PERSONNEL BOARD

Finally, Sizemore argues in his reply that Cal Fire could simply choose not to establish a probationary period for any of itsfirefighters,and thus effectively exempt them from the protecfions of the Act. (See Reply at 4:18-25.) The Court need not, and does not, consider arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief (See Reichardt v. Hoffman (1997) 52 Cal.App.4''^ 754, 764.)

  • Hearing

CAL FIRE LOCAL 2881 VS. CALIFORNIA STATE PERSONNEL BOARD

Finally, Sizemore argues in his reply that Cal Fire could simply choose not to establish a probationary period for any of its firefighters, and thus effectively exempt them from the protections of the Act. (See Reply at 4:18-25.) The Court need not, and does not, consider arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief. (See Reichardt v. Hoffman (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 754, 764.) Moreover, it is far from clear that Cal Fire could simply choose not to establish a probationary period for firefighters.

  • Hearing

TONY SPEARS VS WALGREEN PHARMACY SERVICES MIDWEST, AN ILLINOIS CORPORATION, ET AL.

The 5th cause of action for overtime violations, 6th cause of action for rest period violations, 7th cause of action for meal period violations, 8th cause of action for failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, and 9th cause of action for failure to timely pay all wages due upon separation of employment are time barred by the three-year statute of limitations. CCP §338.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

LEE ROSSUM VS LOS ANGELES COUNTY PROBATION DEPARTMENT

Code § 6255(a) “[t]he agency shall justify withholding any record by demonstrating that the record in question is exempt under express provisions of this chapter or that on the facts of the particular case the public interest served by not disclosing the record clearly outweighs the public interest served by disclosure of the record.”

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

TD AUTO FINANCE LLC VS NEW TECH AUTO CARE, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

(5) A statement that the property has not been taken for a tax, assessment, or fine, pursuant to a statute; or seized under an execution against the property of the plaintiff; or, if so seized, that it is by statute exempt from such seizure. (CCP § 512.010(b).) CCP § 512.060 permits the Court to issue a writ of possession when the Court finds the following: (1) The plaintiff has established the probable validity of the plaintiff's claim to possession of the property.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Promisory Note

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

ALFRED LAX V. ROTO-ROOTER SERVICES COMPANY, ET AL.

Because technicians are non-exempt employees, they are required to keep track of their hours worked, and defendant informs them it will pay overtime if they work more than 8 hours in a day or 40 hours in a week. (Ibid.) However, defendant does not compensate technicians for non-productive time, such as travel time between jobs, equipment repair time, and van maintenance time. (Id., ¶ 9.)

  • Hearing

JIMY JUAREZ V. CREATIVE MANUFACTURING SOLUTIONS, INC., ET AL.

Plaintiff began working for CMS as a non-exempt employee in November 2016. (Id., ¶ 7.) He alleges that CMS scheduled a typical shift so that employees did not receive their first meal period within the first five hours of their shift, did not receive a second meal period for shifts longer than 10 hours, and were not provided with a rest period for every 3.5 hours worked. (Id., ¶ 21.) Employees also experienced overtime violations due to a rounding policy that favored CMS. (Ibid.)

  • Hearing

UPPER VENTURA RIVER VS CASITAS MUNICIPAL WATER

One exception to disclosure is Gov Code § 6254.16 which provides that the name, credit history, utility usage data, home address, or phone number of utilities customers of local agencies is generally exempt from disclosure, with exceptions.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

DILLARD VS FIDELITY NATIONAL F

The First Amended Complaint alleges failure to pay required overtime, failure to maintain accurate records, failure to furnish proper wage statements and derivative waiting time violations. The agreement provides three separate subclasses, a “Wage Statement Class,” an “Overtime” class, and a “Section 203 class” (which is a subset of the Overtime Class). The first group has about 441 members, the second has about 408, and the third has about 268.

  • Hearing

TANER VS. MAR PIZZA, INC.

Given that the Settlement , the Notice, and the proposed Order, define the class as all current and former non-exempt employees who are or were employed by Defendant in California at any time between November 9, 2013 through July 31, 2020, it is unclear what the "cap" provision in Section 3.04(e) is intended to mean. It would appear that a new hire "within the class period" is by definition a member of the class.

  • Hearing

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 294     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.