{"id":156,"date":"2013-09-03T14:04:48","date_gmt":"2013-09-03T14:04:48","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.salehiassoc.com\/index\/?page_id=156"},"modified":"2013-09-03T14:09:05","modified_gmt":"2013-09-03T14:09:05","slug":"recent-class-action-decisions","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"http:\/\/www.salehiassoc.com\/index\/recent-class-action-decisions\/","title":{"rendered":"Recent Class Action Decisions"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Recent Class Action Decisions<\/h1>\n

Alch v. Superior Court<\/em>, \u00a0165 Cal. App. 4th 1412 \u00a0(August 14, 2008) \u2013 \u00a0\u00a0The California Court of Appeal held that plaintiffs in an age discrimination class action were entitled to take discovery regarding the personal biographical and employment information of class members in order to establish a pattern of employment discrimination.<\/p>\n

Absher v. AutoZone, Inc<\/em>., 164 Cal. App. 4th 332 (June 26, 2008) \u2013 \u00a0\u00a0This case deals with California\u2019s statute, Civil Code Section 1747.08, prohibiting a business from requiring a customer to provide personal identification information as part of \u201cany credit card transaction.\u201d\u00a0 The Court held that this prohibition does not apply to a transaction in which the customer returns a purchase in exchange for a reversal of the original credit card charge.<\/p>\n

Peterson v. Cellco Partnership<\/em>, \u00a0164 Cal. App. 4th \u00a01583 (June 26, 2008) \u2013 \u00a0\u00a0In this case the defendant allegedly was an unlicensed seller of insurance protection for cellular telephones.\u00a0 The California Court of Appeal held that plaintiffs did not have standing to sue the defendant under Business and Professions Code Section 17204 because plaintiff suffered no \u201cinjury in fact\u201d or \u201closs of money or property\u201d by virtue of defendant\u2019s status as an unlicensed insurer.<\/p>\n

In re BCBG Overtime Cases<\/em>, 163 Cal. App. 4th 1293 (June 13, 2008) \u2013 \u00a0\u00a0In this case, the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court\u2019s exercise of discretion in granting a defendant\u2019s motion to strike the class allegations from a wage and hour complaint.\u00a0 The Court of Appeal was influenced by the trial court\u2019s long history with the case and the evidence submitted by the defendant on the issue of class certification.<\/p>\n

Amaral v. Cintas Corp. No. 2<\/em>, 163 Cal. App. 4th 1157 (June 11, 2008) \u2013 \u00a0The California Court of Appeal upheld the City of Hayward\u2019s \u201cliving wage\u201d ordinance which requires employers with city contracts to provide employees with minimum wages over above those mandated by state or federal law.<\/p>\n

Advanced-Tech Sec. Services, Inc. v. Superior Court<\/em>, 163 Cal. App. 4th 700 (June 3, 2008) \u2013 \u00a0\u00a0The California Court of Appeal held that an employee who works on a holiday and is already being paid a holiday rate of pay equal to the time and one-half overtime rate is not also entitled to receive additional pay for the overtime hours worked on the holiday.<\/p>\n

Sharp v. Next Entertainment, Inc<\/em>., 163 Cal. App. 4th 410 (May 28, 2008) \u2013 \u00a0\u00a0Lawyers for plaintiffs in a wage and hour class action could not be disqualified because of their representation of a labor union for members of the class, where the plaintiffs waived any actual or potential conflicts of interest from such joint representation.<\/p>\n

Chavez v. Netflix, Inc<\/em>., 162 Cal. App. 4th 43 (April 21, 2008) \u2013 \u00a0\u00a0The California Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court\u2019s approval of a settlement in a consumer class action based on allegedly false advertising.<\/p>\n

Bulfil v. Dollar Financial Group, Inc<\/em>., 162 Cal. App. 4th 1193 (April 17, 2008) \u2013 \u00a0\u00a0The California Court of Appeal upheld certification of a class that was a subset of a larger class that was denied certification in a previous action against the same employer.\u00a0 The Court held that collateral estoppel did not prevent the subsequent certification of a newly defined class that was different from the earlier action.<\/p>\n

Cashcall v. Superior Court<\/em>, 159 Cal. App. 4th 273 (January 24, 2008) \u2013\u00a0 The California Court of Appeal denied a petition for a writ of mandate challenging the trial court\u2019s grant of discovery to plaintiff who lacked standing to maintain the action.\u00a0 In this case, the defendant was accused of secretly recording the telephone calls of customers without their permission.\u00a0 When it was determined that plaintiffs had not been recorded, the trial court granted plaintiffs the right to take discovery to identify new plaintiffs who had in fact been recorded without their knowledge or consent.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Recent Class Action Decisions Alch v. Superior Court, \u00a0165 Cal. App. 4th 1412 \u00a0(August 14, 2008) \u2013 \u00a0\u00a0The California Court of Appeal held that plaintiffs in an age discrimination class action were entitled to take discovery…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.salehiassoc.com\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/156"}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.salehiassoc.com\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.salehiassoc.com\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.salehiassoc.com\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.salehiassoc.com\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=156"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"http:\/\/www.salehiassoc.com\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/156\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":172,"href":"http:\/\/www.salehiassoc.com\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/156\/revisions\/172"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.salehiassoc.com\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=156"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}