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
37 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"......
-
Estrada v. Royalty Carpet Mills
...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"]; I......
Get Started for Free
4 firm's commentaries
-
Employers Must Use Reasonable Diligence To Track Telecommuting Employee Hours
...but suffered or permitted is work time” and must be paid. (29 C.F.R. § 785.11; Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court (2012) 53 Cal.4th 1004.) This concept applies equally to telework performed at the employee’s home. (Id. § 785.12.) “If the employer knows or has reason to believe that ......
-
Hall v. Rite Aid and the Return of the Underpants Gnomes
...side need to press courts to consider the important “step 2” in the gnomes’ grand plan. Thomas R. Kaufman Brinker 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 polic......
-
Employment Law - June 2014
...click here. Sharon Bauman Alan Brunswick Esra Hudson Sandi King Stanley Levy Mandana Massoumi Andrew Satenberg Rebecca Torrey Brinker, at p. 1033; Dailey v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 974, 989.) * * * Trial courts must pay careful attention to manageability when decidin......
-
Employers Win Some, Lose Some, in California Cases Started Prior to Dukes
...threat and such claims may take substantial time and resources even if the employer ultimately prevails. 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 and o......
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