Search anything: case name, case number, motion type, judge, or party
March 11, 2019
Orange County, CA
Sep 29, 2030
Apr 25, 2026
Jun 20, 2021
Jul 06, 2020
Moran Vs Prime Healthcare Management Inc
Canseco Vs Pampanga Food Company Inc *Related To 14 & 15
Trinh Vs Berry Plastics Corporation
Hussein Vs Certified Transportation Services Inc
Ferrer Vs Easter Seals Southern California Inc.
Uribe Vs Crown Building Maintenance Co.
Westminster Mhp Associates Lp Vs Obarr
Martinez Vs Pampanga Food Company Inc
Crandall Vs Maxim Healthcare Services Inc.
Los Alamitos Community United Vs City Of Los Alamitos
The Motion for Summary Adjudication is DENIED. Plaintiff is to give notice. 1st C/A – Issue 1 The 1st cause of action under the California Equal Pay Act, is subject to a McDonnel-Douglas burden shifting analysis. (See CACI No. 2740-42, at Sources and Authorities; Green v. Par Pools, Inc. (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 620, 626; Hall v. County of Los Angeles (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 318, 323–324, Lab. Code §1197.5(a)(1)(D) as effective in 1/2016, and onwards.) The motion as to this cause of action is DENIED. Defendant argues that the cause of action fails, because Plaintiff did not perform substantially similar work as other directors. The test is “substantially similar work” “when viewed as a composite of skill, effort, and responsibility” (Lab Code §1197.5(a)). This description suggests a pretty factual inquiry to begin with. The Motion itself does not present enough information about the scope of the job, to support adjudicating the issue (See Material Facts 1........
You can see and manage all of your alerts under Settings -> Alerts
Please wait a moment while we gather your results.