Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Super. Ct. of San Diego Cty
| Docket Number | S166350 |
| Decision Date | 12 April 2012 |
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
36 cases
-
Woodworth v. Loma Linda Univ. Med. Ctr.
...benefits from certification that render proceeding as a class superior to the alternatives." ( Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court (2012) 53 Cal.4th 1004, 1021 ( Brinker ).) " ‘In turn, the "community of interest requirement embodies three factors: (1) predominant common questions of......
-
Maarten v. Cohanzad
...from certification render proceeding as a class superior to other alternatives. ( Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court (2012) 53 Cal.4th 1004, 1021, 139 Cal.Rptr.3d 315, 273 P.3d 513 ( Brinker ); Code Civ. Proc., § 382.) The trial court concluded plaintiffs established there is an asc......
-
Estrada v. Royalty Carpet Mills, Inc.
...relevance of federal law. California class action jurisprudence has long looked to federal law. (See, e.g., Brinker , supra , 53 Cal.4th at p. 1021, 139 Cal.Rptr.3d 315, 273 P.3d 513 ["Drawing on ... federal precedent, we have articulated clear requirements for the certification of a class"......
-
People v. Ashford Univ.
...as tools to render manageable determinations of the extent of liability." (Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court (2012) 53 Cal.4th 1004, 1054, 139 Cal.Rptr.3d 315, 273 P.3d 513 (cone. opn. of Werdegar, J.), citing, inter alia, Bell v. Farmers Ins. Exchange (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 715, 7......
Get Started for Free
37 firm's commentaries
-
Discounted meal policy requiring employees to stay on company premises upheld
...split shifts intervals and total daily hours worked shall also be recorded.”). The California Supreme Court held in Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court that, “[i]f an employer’s records show no meal period for a given shift over five hours, a rebuttable presumption arises that the em......
-
Mendoza v. Nordstrom – Day Of Rest Rule
...calculation of the seven day period. However, the district court, relying by analogy on the California Supreme Court’s decision in Brinker that an employer is required to relieve an employee of all duty during their break, but not required to ensure the employee actually takes a break, foun......
-
Hall v. Rite Aid and the Return of the Underpants Gnomes
...The easy mechanism to certification in the pre-Dukes era was to cite the California Supreme Court’s 2004 Sav-OnBrinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court, 53 Cal. 4th 1004 (2012), the appellate court in Hall seemingly held that, where the plaintiff alleges that the employer has an unlawful ......
-
Employers Win Some, Lose Some, in California Cases Started Prior to Dukes
...been addressing employment class action claims. In Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011), and Brinker Rest. Corp. v. Superior Court, 273 P.3d 513, 527 (Cal. 2012), California remains a hotbed of employment class litigation as a recent spate of cases reflects. The Dukes case......
Get Started for Free
23 books & journal articles
-
Mcle Self-study Article Where Agreements Won't Work - a Word to the Wise Regarding Strict Wage and Hour Liability and Related Claims
...Welfare Com. Orders, section 11(A) of the applicable order.56. Brinker Restaurant Corporation v. Super. Ct. of San Diego (2012) 53 Cal.4th 1004.57. Lab. Code, section 512, subd. (a); see Cal. Industrial Welfare Com. Orders, section 11(A) of the applicable order.58. Ibid.59. Ibid.60. Ibid.61......
-
Employment Law: Select Cases
...(c). Employers are not obligated to ensure that employees actually take their breaks. Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court (2012) 53 Cal.4th 1004, 1040.6. See Donohue, supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 70 (discussing health policy underlying meal break law).7. Id. at p. 68 (citing Kaanaana v. B......
-
Wage and Hour Case Notes
...Lab. Code §§ 2698, et seq.5. Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200.6. See Cal. Lab. Code §§ 512, 226.7; Brinker Rest. Corp. v. Superior Ct., 53 Cal. 4th 1004, 1039-40 (2012) (employers must provide a meal period for every five hours worked and must pay an hour of premium pay if the meal period is ......
-
Wage and Hour Case Notes
...4th 1112, 1145 (2012).5. Id.6. Duran v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Assn., 59 Cal. 4th 1, 29 (2014); Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court, 53 Cal. 4th 1004, 1033 (2012) ; Dailey v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 214 Cal. App. 4th 974, 989 (2013) ; Sotelo v. Medianews Group, Inc., 207 Cal. App. 4th 639, 65......
Get Started for Free