Though we never had a trial court shave our meal and rest period complaints down to a single year's worth of claims, many cases in Los Angeles, Riverside and elsewhere have proceeded after motions were granted striking references in the pleadings to any meal and rest periods that were missed more than a year before the filing of the complaint. Now that the Supreme Court has confirmed that the hour of pay due for a meal period or rest period violation is a wage, those complaints should be able to reach back farther than one year. Reconsideration is appropriate. In general, motions to reconsider must be made within ten days after notice of the applicable order is served. However, Code of Civil Procedure § 1008(c) states in pertinent part:
"If a court at any time determines that there has been a change of law that warrants it to reconsider a prior order it entered, it may do so on its own motion and enter a different order."
Most plaintiffs are reacting by bringing Murphy to the attention of the court in writing, often in connection with a motion for leave to amend to add waiting time penalties to the claim, including, among other things, allegations (i.e., class definitions) that would effectively restore the claims the court previously struck. In support of the motion, there is a mention and "request" that the court reconsider its prior rulings regarding the statute of limitations in light of Murphy. Such a request is appropriate to invoke the court's inherent power to correct prior rulings under section 1008(c) and LeFrancois v. Goel (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1094. In anyone has obtained rulings granting or denying such motions, we'd like to know how various judges are ruling.