Haro v. City of Los Angeles

Docket Number12-55062,12-55310,12-55076,12-55303
Decision Date18 March 2014

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

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

vLex

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

vLex

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

vLex

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

vLex

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

vLex

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

vLex
55 cases
  • Marsh v. J. Alexander's LLC
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • September 6, 2017
    ...is to be construed liberally in favor of employees [and] exemptions are narrowly construed against employers." Haro v. City of Los Angeles , 745 F.3d 1249, 1256 (9th Cir. 2014) (citation omitted). The majority points to two recent Supreme Court cases which held that the narrow-construction ......
  • Ader v. Simonmed Imaging Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Arizona
    • June 10, 2020
    ...mandatory if Plaintiffs prove actual damages. "Double damages are the norm; single damages are the exception." Haro v. City of Los Angeles , 745 F.3d 1249, 1259 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Chao , 346 F.3d at 920 ).E. Statute of Limitations The parties cross-move for summary judgment on the issu......
  • Howell v. Advantage RN, LLC
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of California
    • August 16, 2019
    ...938, 941 (8th Cir. 2008) ). Consequently, "[d]ouble damages are the norm; single damages are the exception." Haro v. City of Los Angeles , 745 F.3d 1249, 1259 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Chao v. A-One Med. Servs., Inc. , 346 F.3d 908, 920 (9th Cir. 2003) ). In fact, "[l]iquidated damages are ‘m......
  • Cheung v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. Claims Court
    • February 27, 2024
    ...allows for a cumulative offset or whether damages must be calculated on a workweek by workweek basis. See Haro v. City of Los Angeles, 745 F.3d 1249, 1255 (9th Cir. 2014) ("While the Sixth and Seventh Circuits have ruled that a week-by-week offset must be used [to offset other types of prem......
  • Get Started for Free
5 books & journal articles
  • § 3.2.13 THE WORKWEEK.
    • United States
    • State Bar of Arizona Employment Law Handbook Chapter 3 Wage and Hour Law Article 3.2 Fair Labor Standards Act
    • Invalid date
    ...in misclassification case, but using identical mathematical formula to calculate damages based on binding Supreme Court precedent). [91] 745 F.3d 1249 (9th Cir....
  • § 3.2.3 STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.
    • United States
    • State Bar of Arizona Employment Law Handbook Chapter 3 Wage and Hour Law Article 3.2 Fair Labor Standards Act
    • Invalid date
    ...as amended 29 U.S.C. § 251.[13] 29 U.S.C. § 255(a).[14] McLaughlin v. Richland Shoe Co., 486 U.S. 128 (1988); Haro v. City of L.A. Corp., 745 F.3d 1249 (9th Cir....
  • Wage and Hour Update
    • United States
    • California Lawyers Association California Labor & Employment Law Review (CLA) No. 29-4, July 2015
    • Invalid date
    ...See Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 842 (1984).37. Id. at 843.38. Haro v. City of Los Angeles, 745 F.3d 1249, 1256 (9th Cir. 2014).39. Solis v. Washington, 656 F.3d 1079, 1083 (9th Cir. 2011).40. CHW W. Bay v. Thompson, 246 F.3d 1218, 1223 (9th Cir....
  • Public Sector Case Notes
    • United States
    • California Lawyers Association California Labor & Employment Law Review (CLA) No. 28-4, July 2014
    • Invalid date
    ...sector.FIRE FIGHTERS FLSA Fire Fighter Exemption Not Applicable to Dispatchers and Aeromedical Technicians Haro v. City of Los Angeles, 745 F.3d 1249 (9th Cir. 2014) The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) exempts fire fighters from overtime for work beyond forty hours in one work week. Fire fi......
  • Get Started for Free