Search for: "99 CENTS ONLY STORES"
Results 61 - 80
of 133
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
11 Mar 2011, 10:45 am
99 Cents Only Stores joins a growing list of discount retailers that have attracted takeover interest, with its controlling family and Leonard Green & Partners making a bid. [read post]
4 Mar 2011, 8:39 am
Notably, each of these versions were much cheaper than the other two, costing only 99 cents. [read post]
2 Mar 2011, 3:47 pm
What if I told you she was suing the 99 Cent store for more than 99 cents? [read post]
21 Feb 2011, 6:13 pm
Bright v. 99 Cents Only Stores, S189216—Review Denied [Baxter, J., voting for review]—February 16, 2011 This was a putative class action by an employee against an employer under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, Labor Code sections 2698 et seq. [read post]
18 Feb 2011, 3:44 pm
For example, in Bright v. 99¢ Only Stores (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 1472, the court held civil penalties available under PAGA, consisting of $100 per each "aggrieved employee" per pay period for the first violation and $200 per "aggrieved" employee per pay period for each subsequent violation, could be recovered because no other penalties for violating the seating requirements were provided by law.This week, during the California… [read post]
18 Feb 2011, 9:19 am
Included in the indictments were allegations that one man installed a credit card skimming devices at 99 Cents Only stores to obtain customer account information and that 2 Glendale residents kidnapped others for ransom. [read post]
16 Feb 2011, 8:09 pm
App. 4th 562 (2010) [PAGA claims precluded when underlying claims released in prior settlement]; Petition for Review denied in Bright v. 99¢ Only Stores, 189 Cal. [read post]
7 Feb 2011, 4:04 pm
Anyone can access the database of 99 cent documents at http://www.chapter11cases.com/99-Document-Specials_c_20998.html and can search for documents by bankruptcy case, document topic, and/or type of document. [read post]
12 Jan 2011, 2:56 pm
The plaintiff in the case, Eugenia Bright, alleged 99¢ Only Stores violated Section 14 of Wage Order 7-2001 stating all working employees “shall be provided with suitable seats when the nature of the work reasonably permits” such use. [read post]
29 Dec 2010, 5:08 pm
In Bright v. 99 Cents Only Stores, the plaintiff brought a class action suit on behalf of hundreds of current and former employees under the California Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 ("PAGA"). [read post]
23 Dec 2010, 8:03 am
(Bright v. 99¢ Only Stores (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 1472 (Bright).) [read post]
22 Dec 2010, 5:03 pm
(This is the same conclusion that the Court of Appeal reached in Bright v. 99¢ Only Stores (November 12, 2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 1472, which I somehow failed to note when it came down. [read post]
22 Dec 2010, 2:20 pm
In Bright v. 99¢ Only Stores, 189 Cal. [read post]
22 Nov 2010, 2:49 pm
The plaintiff in the case, Eugenia Bright, alleged 99¢ Only Stores violated Section 14 of Wage Order 7-2001 stating all working employees “shall be provided with suitable seats when the nature of the work reasonably permits” such use. [read post]
18 Nov 2010, 3:07 pm
In the recently published Bright v. 99¢ Only Stores, the California Court of Appeal held that an employee could sue her employer, 99¢ Only Stores, for failure to provide “suitable” seating during her employment. [read post]
16 Nov 2010, 8:47 pm
In Bright v. 99 Cent Only Stores, the Second Appellate District reversed the dismissal of a cashier's claim for penalties because her employer failed to give her a place to sit while she was working. [read post]
15 Nov 2010, 2:38 pm
In Bright v. 99¢ ONLY STORES, the Court of Appeal (Second Appellate District, Division Five) held that (1) violations of Wage Order No. 7, subdivision 14 are violations of section 1198; and (2) civil penalties under section 2699, subdivision (f) are available despite the fact that Commission wage order No. 7-2001 has its own penalty provision. [read post]
13 Nov 2010, 8:08 pm
"Eugina Bright worked for 99 Cents Only Stores. [read post]
12 Nov 2010, 12:55 pm
On November 12, 2010, the Second District (Division 5), in Bright v. 99¢ Only Stores, __ Cal.App. 4th __ (2010), overturned a trial court order dismissing a PAGA claim predicated upon Wage Order 7’s “suitable seating” requirement. [read post]
12 Nov 2010, 11:55 am
I had no idea that in California, you have a right to sit on your butt, and can file a class action if your employer denies that right. [read post]
