What is the Workers’ Compensation Act?

Useful Resources for Workers’ Compensation Act (WCA)

Recent Rulings on Workers’ Compensation Act (WCA)

9976-10000 of 10000 results

ROBIN RUDISILL ET AL VS CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION ET AL

On February 9, 2015, Planning issued new Mello Act compliance determinations for 416-418 and 422-424 Grand Blvd. On February 18, 2015, Petitioner appealed the new Mello Act compliance determinations. The Planning Commission held a hearing and on March 4, 2015, the Planning Commission denied Petitioner’ appeals from issuance of the CDPs and Mello Act compliance determinations.

  • Hearing

    Mar 05, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

BUCHER V. DISNEY WORLDWIDE SERVICES, INC.

Whether the statute of limitations defense applies requires a fact intensive determination into the merits of this case that will require testimony and evidence from plaintiff, Defendant Goulet, numerous co-workers and supervisors, and plaintiff’s therapists. Much, if not all, of the history of the alleged harassment would have to be presented in connection with the continuing violation and permanence arguments.

  • Hearing

    Mar 05, 2020

CLIFT V. ST. MARY MEDICAL CENTER

To state that COA, a plaintiff must allege that the employer knew or had reason to believe the employee was unfit, or knew or should have known of alleged misconduct and failed to act in a reasonable manner based thereon. (See CACI 426, Lopez v. Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York, Inc. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 566, 591, Phillips v. TLC Plumbing, Inc. (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 1133, 1139.) The Complaint here fails to adequately assert a factual basis for this claim.

  • Hearing

    Mar 05, 2020

MICHAEL PALACIOS VS FALKOR INDUSTRY, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

“The court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed, or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed.” (C.R.C. Rule 3.1348(a).) As indicated above, Attorney Akhashian does not attribute his client’s failure to respond to discovery to his client.

  • Hearing

    Mar 05, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

  • Judge

    Lori Ann Fournier or Olivia Rosales

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

WEST COAST LABORATORIES, INC., A CORPORATION VS ALAN ELIAS SHAD

The complaint is based on Shad’s breach of a settlement agreement via filing an ex parte application seeking compensation from West Coast. Comp. at ¶¶9-12. The facts here are similar to those in Mundy v. Lenc, (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 1401, 1408-09, in which plaintiff claimed defendant breached a settlement agreement by filing a second action.

  • Hearing

    Mar 05, 2020

GARCIA VS. SUPER COLOR DIGITAL, LLC

Super Color has met its initial burden of showing that the first cause of action for disability discrimination in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) [Issue 1]; second cause of action for discrimination based on sex in violation of the FEHA [Issue 3]; third cause of action for failure to accommodate in violation of the FEHA [Issue 5]; fourth cause of action for failure to engage in the interactive process in violation of the FEHA [Issue 7]; fifth cause of action for retaliation in violation

  • Hearing

    Mar 05, 2020

JOHNSON VS ARCH HEALTH MEDICAL GROUP

Pursuant to the California Tort Claims Act (Government Code § 910 et seq.), a claimant/plaintiff may sue a public entity for damages if he first presents a claim to the public entity within six months of the claim's accrual, and the entity has either acted upon the claim or deemed the claim rejected. Gov't Code §§ 911.2, 945.4; Draper v. City of Los Angeles (1990) 52 Ca1.3d 502, 505.

  • Hearing

    Mar 05, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

TOMMY GAY VS DIAMOND MATTRESS COMPANY, INC., ET AL.

Plaintiff Tommy Gay alleges violations of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) and the labor code. Defendants Diamond Mattress Company, Inc., and JobSource Carson, Inc., were Plaintiff’s employer. Defendants Arturo Perez, Martin Romero, and Javier Gomez were Plaintiff’s supervisors.

  • Hearing

    Mar 05, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

  • Judge

    Salvatore Sirna or Gary Y. Tanaka

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

GOMEZ VS VORTEX MAINTENANCE INC

PAGA thus permits the state-through LWDA-to designate more than one employee to act as its agent in a dispute with a particular employer. (Julian v. Glenair, Inc. (2017) 17 Cal.App.5th 853, 873, as modified on denial of reh'g (Dec. 13, 2017); See also, Tan v. GrubHub, Inc. (N.D. Cal. 2016) 171 F.Supp.3d 998, 1012–1013) Defendant shall answer by March 16, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Mar 05, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

OMGIVNING VS HW HELLMAN BUILDING LP

Marathon Development California, Inc. (1992) 2 Cal. 4th 342, 372-373, which states that the covenant applies where a contract confers on one party a discretionary power affecting the rights of the other and in those situations the party in control must act in good faith. Thus, “[a] party violates the covenant if it subjectively lacks belief in the validity of its act or if its conduct is objectively unreasonable.” (Id. at p. 162.)

  • Hearing

    Mar 05, 2020

LASHARA JOHNSON AN INCOMPETENT ADULT BY AND THROUGH HER NEXT FRIEND BEVERLY SMITH VS. THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

However, actions "by a minor shall be commenced within three years from the date of the alleged wrongful act except that actions by a minor under the full age of six years shall be commenced within three years or prior to his eighth birthday whichever provides a longer period." Id. (emphasis added).

  • Hearing

    Mar 05, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

ONTIVEROS VS LEWIS

Defendants seek to compel arbitration pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA") or Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.2. The FAA governs arbitration provisions in contracts that involve interstate commerce. 9 U.S.C. § 1. Defendants have the burden of proving the Rental Agreement affects interstate commerce. Carbajal v. CWPSC, Inc. (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 227, 238. Defendants argue that the arbitration provision itself shows the parties "clearly and explicitly" agreed the FAA would apply.

  • Hearing

    Mar 05, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

GOMEZ VS VORTEX MAINTENANCE INC

PAGA thus permits the state-through LWDA-to designate more than one employee to act as its agent in a dispute with a particular employer. (Julian v. Glenair, Inc. (2017) 17 Cal.App.5th 853, 873, as modified on denial of reh'g (Dec. 13, 2017); See also, Tan v. GrubHub, Inc. (N.D. Cal. 2016) 171 F.Supp.3d 998, 1012–1013) Defendant shall answer by March 16, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Mar 05, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

FINKELSTEIN VS KRINSK

To resolve competing claims concerning awards of attorney fees between F&K, BFFB and BR&B, HDF unilaterally agreed to reduce the compensation he would receive pursuant to a January 12, 2015 Agreement (Exhibit "E" hereto), and accept a flat $700,000 cash payment pursuant to a written accord and satisfaction agreed to by HDF. . . . .

  • Hearing

    Mar 05, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

VUTIPON VONGPAYAK, ET AL. VS SUPATT THAWATPEERACHAI, ET AL.

Code §17200, Cross-Complainants must allege whether the conduct complained of is a fraudulent, unlawful or an unfair business act or practice. To bring a claim under the fraud prong, Cross-Complainants must allege an affirmative misrepresentation, conduct or business practice on the part of a cross-defendant; or an omission in violation of a cross-defendant’s duty to disclose; and that is likely to deceive members of the public. (Buller v. Sutter Health (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 981, 986.)

  • Hearing

    Mar 05, 2020

  • Judge

    Lori Ann Fournier or Olivia Rosales

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

KATELYN SANCHEZ VS CITY OF LONG BEACH ET AL

“Ordinarily, negligence may be pleaded in general terms and the plaintiff need not specify the precise act or omission alleged to constitute the breach of duty. [Citation]. However, because under the Tort Claims Act all governmental tort liability is based on statute, the general rule that statutory causes of action must be pleaded with particularity is applicable.

  • Hearing

    Mar 05, 2020

PALO CAPITAL, INC. V. CANNIVET

Inc. (2009) 47 Cal.4th 610, 618: “we construe the term ‘wages’ broadly to include not only the periodic monetary earnings of the employee but also the other benefits to which he is entitled as a part of his compensation … Incentive compensation, such as bonuses and profit-sharing plans, also constitute wages.” So long as the individual demanding payment is personally performing services, the remuneration constitutes “wages” regardless of its form.

  • Hearing

    Mar 05, 2020

CAGNEY ENTERPRISES, LLC VS. NARDONE

In the SAC, on the other hand, Nardone alleges that Phillip Fusco unfairly interfered with his rights by refusing to pay him the required compensation, participate in the management of INC., depriving him of the right to inspect INC’s books, et. (SAC, ¶ 50.)

  • Hearing

    Mar 05, 2020

NARCISO RAMIREZ CS. DIANA JIMENEZ, ET. AL.

Conspiracy requires an agreement by two or more persons to commit a wrongful act. (CACI 3600.) The agreement may be made orally, in writing, or implied via conduct. (Ibid.) Plaintiff must first meet his burden as to fraud. The elements of fraud are (1) a misrepresentation; (2) knowledge of falsity; (3) intent to induce reliance; (4) justifiable reliance; and (5) resulting damage. (Lazar v. Superior Court (1996) 12 Cal.4th 631, 638.) Fraud must be pled with specificity. (Id. at 645.)

  • Hearing

    Mar 05, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

  • Judge

    Salvatore Sirna or Gary Y. Tanaka

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

CITY VENTURES HOMEBUILDING VS THE CITY OF CARLSBAD

"A ministerial duty is an obligation to perform a specific act in a manner prescribed by law whenever a given state of facts exists, without regard to any personal judgment as to the propriety of the act." Id. at 340 (citations omitted); see also People ex rel. Younger v.

  • Hearing

    Mar 05, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

REBECCA MORALES V. GEORGE KUNHARDT, M.D.

This action arises solely from the alleged negligent act and sounds in tort.” (Christ, supra, 99 Cal.App.3d at 899.) The Court of Appeal held that the trial court did not abuse is discretion in denying the plaintiffs leave to amend their claim for breach of warranty (contract). (Christ, supra, 99 Cal.App.3d 894.)

  • Hearing

    Mar 05, 2020

GIUSEPPINA DOMICOLO VS GENERAL MOTORS LLC

[is] a careful compilation of the time spent and reasonable hourly compensation of each attorney . . . in the presentation of the case.” (Serrano v. Priest (1977) 20 Cal.3d 25, 48 (Serrano III).) A reasonable hourly rate must reflect the skill and experience of the attorney. (Id. at p. 49.) “Prevailing parties are compensated for hours reasonably spent on fee-related issues.

  • Hearing

    Mar 05, 2020

LASHARA JOHNSON AN INCOMPETENT ADULT BY AND THROUGH HER NEXT FRIEND BEVERLY SMITH VS. THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

However, actions "by a minor shall be commenced within three years from the date of the alleged wrongful act except that actions by a minor under the full age of six years shall be commenced within three years or prior to his eighth birthday whichever provides a longer period." Id. (emphasis added).

  • Hearing

    Mar 05, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

DAVID PHILLIPS VS CHARLES JOSEPH VAILLANCOURT, ET AL.

The Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) & Enforceability “Unlike its federal counterpart, the California Arbitration Act, Cal.Civ.Proc.Code Ann. § 1280 et seq. (West 1982), contains a provision allowing a court to stay arbitration pending resolution of related litigation.

  • Hearing

    Mar 05, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

CESAR SOSA VS. PRECISE FIT LIMITED

The Court also notes that The California Tax Preparation Act, Bus. & Prof. Code §22250 does not contain an express preemption clause. Moreover, the Court finds that there are other bases for Cesar Jr.’s fraud liability aside from the preparation of taxes. Third Cause of Action – Negligence On September 9, 2019, the demurrer to this cause of action was SUSTAINED without leave to amend as to THE SOSA CORPORATION .

  • Hearing

    Mar 05, 2020

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Promisory Note

  • Judge

    Lori Ann Fournier or Olivia Rosales

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  « first    1 ... 395 396 397 398 399 400

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.