What is the Workers’ Compensation Act?

Useful Resources for Workers’ Compensation Act (WCA)

Recent Rulings on Workers’ Compensation Act (WCA)

51-75 of 10000 results

CENTRAVEL, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL. VS MARVIN A. TORRES, ET AL.

Every California case finding nonsignatories to be bound to arbitrate is based on facts that demonstrate, in one way or another, the signatory’s implicit authority to act on behalf of the nonsignatory. (Id. at 860.) Generally, a parent company is not liable on a contract that is signed by its subsidiary simply because it is a wholly owned subsidiary. (Id. at 861.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 25, 2021

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

DEANNA COLLINS, ET AL. VS MOSS MANAGEMENT SERVICES INC

The Code of Civil Procedure also authorizes the Court to act on its own initiative to strike matters, empowering the Court to enter orders striking matter “at any time in its discretion, and upon terms it deems proper.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 436.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 25, 2021

LARSON VS. FREEDLINE

The anti-SLAPP statute protects “any act . . . in furtherance of a person’s right of petition or free speech under the United States Constitution or the California Constitution in connection with a public issue.”

  • Hearing

    Jan 25, 2021

GARCIA VS. ARTEAGA

Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges Defendant redirected Worker’s Compensation clients away from the firm’s Santa Ana office location and that Defendant shared legal fees from the Worker’s Compensation cases with individuals who were not lawyers. (Compl., ¶¶ 22-26, 28, 30-38.) Defendant’s Cross-Complaint alleges Plaintiff engaged in self-dealing and diverted Partnership resources for Plaintiff’s personal use. (Cross-Compl., ¶ 13.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 25, 2021

FELICIA RAE HAYNES, ET AL. VS GERMAN ARNOLDO NAJERA GRAJEDA, ET AL.

AutoZone also states it has paid workerscompensation benefits. The Motion is unopposed. A nonparty shall petition the court for leave to intervene by noticed motion or by ex parte application. The petition shall include a copy of the proposed complaint in intervention or answer in intervention and set forth the grounds upon which intervention rests. (Code Civ. Proc., § 387, subd. (c).)

  • Hearing

    Jan 25, 2021

KALENA KAILI-THOMAS, ATTORNEY-IN-FACT FOR PATRICIA NORBERG V. NORBERG

As an initial matter, the Court grants Defendant’s unopposed request for judicial notice of the two petitions currently pending in the Probate Action: (1) the Petition by Kalena Kaili-Thomas for Order to Compel the Trustee to Account and to Resume Monthly Distributions, for Redress for Breach of Trust, and for Denial of Trustee Compensation (Probate Action ROA #2); and (2) the Petition by Mary Norberg, Trustee, for Order Instructing Trustee (Probate Action ROA #10).

  • Hearing

    Jan 25, 2021

ALICE DURAN VS CITY OF GARDENA, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, ET AL.

Defendants contend the FAC only alleges that the bus driver ignored her request to exit the express bus while it was in transit and that this act has no causal connection with Plaintiff’s decision to jump out a bus window. Defendant also argues that its failure to provide signs or an announcement was not a breach a duty and that it did not cause Plaintiff to voluntarily jump out of a moving bus while it was on a freeway. In opposition, Plaintiff argues Defendant’s duty arises from being a common carrier.

  • Hearing

    Jan 25, 2021

RAJI RAB VS. ALEX PADILLA SECRETARY OF STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Rab did not act quickly to schedule a hearing on the merits. Instead, on June 18, he filed a lengthy motion for reconsideration of the Court’s order denying his application for a temporary restraining order and order to show cause. On June 23, the Court denied the motion for reconsideration because it was not based on new facts, circumstances, or law, as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 1008.

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2021

START INC VS NATIONAL FIRE & MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY ET AL

If the cases are tried together, while the jury instructions, jury verdicts, and judgments would largely remain separate, the jury would have the opportunity to evaluate and assess the entire course of events, and properly allocate responsibility among the various actors, and the Court would have the ability to ensure that full—but not excessive—compensation was achieved.

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2021

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

ARNO PATRICK KUIGOUA VS. CALIFORNIA STATE PERSONNEL BOARD

[Real Party in Interest] also points out that a continuance may unduly delay the proceedings because its coimsel will be on maternity leave imtil late July or early August 2019, and other attomeys would be unavailable to act in her place if the matter was reset before then. On March 22, 2019, Presiding Administrative Law Judge Mark Kmger issued an order denying Petitioner's motion. (AR 217.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2021

ARNO PATRICK KUIGOUA VS. CALIFORNIA STATE PERSONNEL BOARD

[Real Party in Interest] also points out that a continuance may unduly delay the proceedings because its counsel will be on maternity leave until late July or early August 2019, and other attorneys would be unavailable to act in her place if the matter was reset before then. On March 22, 2019, Presiding Administrative Law Judge Mark Kruger issued an order denying Petitioner’s motion. (AR 217.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2021

JENNY BELFORTE ET AL VS REGENTS OF UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA ET AL

“The maximum liability imposed by this section is the maximum liability authorized under this section at the time that the act of willful misconduct by a minor was committed.” (Civ. Code, § 1714.1, subd. (d).) “Nothing in this section shall impose liability on an insurer for a loss caused by the willful act of the insured for purposes of Section 533 of the Insurance Code.

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2021

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

MIRA'JE MCCOFFIN VS. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENTAL SERVICES

A at 12 ["Neither the Lanterman Act nor the regulations ... exclude medical diagnoses from conditions qualifying as closely related to intellectual disability"].) Third, the court found that the AU misconstrued the definition of "developmental disability" in Section 4512(a). (See id., Exh. A at 14 ["Grafting the phrase 'and no other condition' onto Section 4512(a)'s definition of 'developmental disability was erroneous"].) Fourth, the court noted an ambiguity in the AU's reasoning. (See id., Exh.

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2021

JACK CHAVEZ VS ANACAPA CONCRETE INC

Plaintiff alleges that Anacapa Concrete failed to pay employees overtime compensation, provide rest breaks, provide meal periods, provide accurate wage statements, and pay all wages owed upon termination. Anacapa Concrete denies the allegations. The court has ordered that this letter be sent to you to determine if you would object to Plaintiff’s lawyers receiving your name, address, and telephone number.

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2021

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

MARGUERITE GAMO VS LYNDA GEMBERLING

Plaintiff alleges: The tenancy is not subject to the Tenant Protection Act of 2019 (Civil Code § 1946.2) (“TPA”). On October 7, 2020, plaintiff served defendant with a 30-day notice to vacate by posting and mailing. The notice states: “As you have not been in possession of the Property for greater than 12 months, Civil Code section 1946.2 does not apply to your tenancy.

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2021

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

ARRIETA VS ASSA ABLOY ACCESSORIES

This code section is the Family Care and Medical Leave Act. It provides that employers cannot refuse requests from qualifying employees for up to 12 weeks of family care and medical leave. It further provides that an employer cannot discharge or discriminate against any individual because of the individual's exercise of the right to family care and medical leave provided by subdivision.

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2021

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

SONNENSHEIN VS PACIFIC UNION

In a fraud action, under Civil Code § 1709 "one may recover compensation for time and effort expended in reliance on a defendant's misrepresentation. [Citations omitted.]" (Block v. Tobin (1975) 45 Cal.App.3d 214, 220.) b. Cost of Repair Defendants argue Plaintiffs' claim for cost of repair damages is not supported by allegations the Property requires repair.

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2021

SONNENSHEIN VS PACIFIC UNION

"Where a fiduciary obligation is present, the courts have recognized a postponement of the accrual of the cause of action until the beneficiary has knowledge or notice of the act constituting a breach of fidelity. [Citations.] The existence of a trust relationship limits the duty of inquiry.

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2021

DRISCOLL/KINDRA VS. EQUITY TRUST

Plaintiffs’ act in simply purchasing the Walnut Creek residence cannot reasonably be deemed an act “designed to induce” Silver Oak to commit such a breach; nothing plaintiffs allegedly did would have prevented Silver Oak from meeting its contractual obligations, either by paying cross-complainants directly or by making provision for such payment in the purchase escrow.

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2021

ASHAR VS HANLEY ET AL.

by the complaint or affidavits that the commission or continuance of some act during the litigation would produce waste, or great or irreparable injury, to a party to the action (CCP § 526(a)(2);) or  When it appears, during the litigation, that a party to the action is doing, or threatens, or is about to do, or is procuring or suffering to be done, some act in violation of the rights of another party to the action respecting the subject of the action, and tending to render the judgment ineffectual.

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2021

BYERS VS USAA GENERAL INDEMNIT

Under these facts, MDI was not acting as USAA’s independent adjuster in adjusting that claim, it was merely the independent contractor to whom USAA referred plaintiffs for any compensation. (See generally Garcia, supra (foster care agency not vicariously liable for negligence of foster parent, an independent contractor). The demurrer to this cause of action is sustained, with leave to amend.

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2021

LINDA WILKINSON VS DON KENDRICK, ET AL.

“[U]nder the Tort Claims Act, all governmental tort liability is based on statute.” (Lopez v. Southern Cal. Rapid Transit Dist. (1985) 40 Cal.3d 780, 795.) Pursuant to Government Code section 815.2, subdivision (b), “except as otherwise provided by statute, a public entity is not liable for an injury resulting from an act or omission of an employee of the public entity where the employee is immune from liability.”

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2021

NORMA PATRICIA VENCEBI, AN INDIVIDUAL VS LOURDES TRIGUEROS, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL.

If, however, the accident causes immediate soft tissue damage, no amount of aid would reduce or minimize the future damages, and the act of hitting and running would not give rise to additional damages. If the act of hitting and running, in and of itself, does not give rise to a tort, then it logically follows that the act cannot give rise to a claim for punitive damages. (Id.) Here, the FAC alleges in relevant part 4.

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2021

EDUARDO HERNANDEZ VS COMMUNITY AUTO SERVICE, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

(FEHA) · C/A 3: Failure to Prevent (FEHA) · C/A 4: Failure to Provide Accommodations (FEHA) · C/A 5: Failure to Engage in Good Faith Interactive Process (FEHA) · C/A 6: Declaratory Judgment · C/A 7: Wrongful Termination · C/A 8: Denial and Discrimination based on Use of Sick Leave (Labor Code §§233, 234, 246.5) · C/A 9: Failure to Pay Wages (Labor Code §§ 201, 1182.12, 1194, 1194.2) · C/A 10: Failure to Pay Minimum Wages (Labor Code §§ 1182.12, 1194, 1194.2, 1197) · C/A 11: Failure to Pay Overtime Compensation

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2021

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

SALVADOR DELGADILLO, ET AL. VS CARLOS P CASIM, ET AL.

The court notes general damages are recoverable under the elder abuse act. (See Fenimore v. Regents of University of California (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 1339, 1352 holding “under the Elder Abuse Act, “[t]he limitations imposed by Section 377.34 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the damages recoverable shall not apply.” (Welf. & Inst.Code, § 15657.) This is why elder abuse plaintiffs may bring a survivor action and recover damages for the elder's predeath pain and suffering.”)

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

  « first    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 400     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.