Search for: "State California v. Superior Court" Results 961 - 980 of 3,643
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
18 Feb 2010, 4:04 pm by AALRR
AndreAgain and again, California appellate courts have held various features of employment arbitration agreements to be unconscionable and therefore unenforceable.On February 18, 2010, in Suh v. [read post]
7 Dec 2011, 3:14 pm by AALRR
Superior Court, the California Court of Appeal held that while an employer is required to "provide" to non-exempt employees at least one unpaid, duty-free meal period of at least 30 minutes each workday of more than 6 hours, the obligation to "provide" required meal  periods means to make the required meal periods available and not to ensure that employees take all required meal periods. [read post]
17 Feb 2015, 9:35 am by Kevin Jackson
In 2012, the California Supreme Court issued its highly-anticipated opinion in Brinker Restaurant Corporation, et al. v. [read post]
3 Oct 2014, 6:17 am
Thus, the court found that plaintiffs had satisfied predominance and superiority under Rule 23(b)(3) and granted plaintiff’s motion for class certification with respect to all states but West Virginia. [read post]
13 Oct 2011, 11:57 am by Sean Wajert
CTE sought dismissal on the grounds the state court lacked personal jurisdiction. [read post]
15 Jan 2015, 10:17 am by Lawrence B. Ebert
Exercise offederal jurisdiction is therefore improper.CONCLUSIONFor these reasons, this courtVACATES AND REMANDS TO THE DISTRICTCOURT WITH INSTRUCTIONS TO REMAND THECASE TO CALIFORNIA STATE COURT [read post]
30 Oct 2013, 11:43 am by Greg Mersol
Superior Court, 273 P.3d 513, 527 (Cal. 2012), California remains a hotbed of employment class litigation as a recent spate of cases reflects. [read post]
17 Jun 2019, 12:38 pm by Tracy Scheidtmann
On May 29, 2019, the California State Assembly overwhelmingly passed AB 5, a bill seeking to codify Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. [read post]
22 Aug 2011, 11:10 am
NCS Healthcare, Inc., 818 A.2d 914 (Del. 2003), and instead relied upon the reasoning of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Jewel Companies, Inc. v. [read post]