My Photo

Twitter Updates

    follow me on Twitter

    September 2016

    Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
            1 2 3
    4 5 6 7 8 9 10
    11 12 13 14 15 16 17
    18 19 20 21 22 23 24
    25 26 27 28 29 30  

    « How To Get Sued by an Employee | Main | Breaking News! Law Firm To Prepare For Trial! »

    Comments

    mary

    this is great. today i was rereading conley v pge, another case you blogged about. this is a very bad case in the following sense: the 1st DCA says that if defendant had no meaningful opportunity to address merits before cert then it was O.K. to consider in connection with cert motion (i know they say parties requested so it was O.K., but read further and they say it would also be O.K. for other reasons). if you read footnote, the reason they had no meaningful opportunity is that they failed to comply with 437c. so what this means is that a defendant who either doesn't do a summary judgment or does it badly, can now raise the issue in opposition to summary judgment. i, personally, hate the opinion for the ruling on partial day deductions, but i think the above issue has much more signifcance for everyone's practice and someone with standing, like non-profits, trial lawyers assc., etc., ought to move to depublish.

    MIchael Carver

    Regarding meal & rest breaks, on July l1, 2005, the state Senate passed Assembly Concurrent Resolution (ACR) 43, which was chaptered by the Secretary of State on July 18, 2005. ACR 43 makes it clear, in the opinion of the Legislature, that the Labor Commissioner lacks authority to promulgate the proposed regulations. It further states the proposed regulations are contrary to state law.

    On July 7, 2005, the DLSE once again modified the proposed regulations. This latest incarnation has a provision that allows employees to waive meal periods entirely in some cases. If promulgated, this is a substantive change in the law. Additionally, the regulation has interesting language that suggests it may be intended to only apply prospectively.

    The Writ of Mandate pending in Sacramento Superior Court, Coralles, et. al. v. Donna Dell, Case 05 CS 00421, was set for argument on July 28, 2005. However, Judge Connelly was ill and the hearing will be rescheduled. The Writ challenges the Labor Commissioner’s procedures on meal and rest break cases, and in particular, the recent designation of the “Precedent Decision” of the Hartwig case.

    The Link for ACR 43 is: www.aroundthecapitol.com/Bills/ACR_43/

    The comments to this entry are closed.

    Become a Fan

    AddThis Social Bookmark Button