amicus curiae | CALIFORNIA CLASS ACTION LAW

April 2, 2013

In Wage Class Action, Second District Affirms Labor Code Section 203 Penalties and Requires Separate Minimum Wage Pay for Certain Piece Rate Workers

1905 American Mercedes In a year when the average wage was only $200 to $400 annually, the Mercedes was a car for the rich readers of Country Life magazine. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Today, the Second District Court of Appeal published Gonzalez v. Downtown LA Motors, LP, et al., Case No. B235292, __ Cal. App. 4th __ (2d Dist. Mar. 6, 2013). Gonzalez is a wage class action where the question presented was whether California’s minimum wage law requires an employer that compensates its automotive service technicians on a “piece-rate” basis for repair work must also pay those technicians a separate hourly minimum wage for time spent during their work shifts waiting for vehicles to repair or performing other non-repair tasks directed by the employer. Defendant automobile dealership contended it was not required to pay the technicians a separate hourly minimum wage for such time because it ensured that a technician’s total compensation for a pay period never fell below what the employer refers to as the “minimum wage floor” — the total number of hours the technician was at work during the pay period (including hours spent waiting for repair work or performing non-repair tasks), multiplied by the applicable minimum wage rate. The employer supplemented pay, if necessary, to cover any shortfall.

The Court of Appeal concluded that class members were entitled to separate hourly compensation for time spent waiting for repair work or performing other non-repair tasks directed by the employer during their work shifts, as well as penalties under Labor Code section 203, subdivision (a). You can read more about the Gonzalez opinion here.

By CHARLES H. JUNG

August 25, 2010

Treble Recovery Under Civil Code § 3345 Not Limited to CLRA; But It Does Not Apply to an Award of Restitution Under the UCL

: Image via Wikipedia

In Clark v. Superior Court, 235 P.3d 171, 112 Cal. Rptr. 3d 876 (Cal. Aug. 9, 2010), senior citizens brought an action against an annuity seller for unfair competition pursuant to BPC 17200, seeking treble recovery. The Los Angeles Superior Court granted judgment on the pleadings for the annuity seller’s on the treble recovery claim, without leave to amend. Read the rest of this entry »

August 19, 2010

Ninth Circuit Holds That Deadline for Objection to Class Action Fee Award Must Be Set for Date After Plaintiff’s Counsel Files Fee Motion

: Image by Butte-Silver Bow Public Library via Flickr

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday clarified the timing of objections to class counsel’s fee requests under Fed. R. Civ. Proc. Rule 23(h), holding that objectors must be given a deadline to object after plaintiff’s fee application is submitted. The litigation in In re Mercury Interactive Corp. Securities Litigation, No. 08-17372, — F.3d —-, 2010 WL 3239460 (9th Cir. Aug. 18, 2010), which involved stock option backdating, settled early on, at the motion to dismiss stage.

A settlement class was certified, the settlement of $117.5 million in cash was approved, and attorneys’ fees of 25% ($29.375 million) were awarded pursuant to the settlement agreement. No objections were made to the settlement itself, but two objections were made to the proposed attorneys’ fees. Id. *2. The court described lead counsel’s fee application as follows: Read the rest of this entry »

Tag: amicus curiae