Cases95
California and federal decisions cited across this site.
Ferra v. Loews Hollywood Hotel, LLC (2021) 11 Cal.5th 858Published characterization
Cal. Supreme Court · 2021-07-15
“Regular rate of compensation” in § 226.7(c) is synonymous with the “regular rate of pay” used for overtime under § 510(a): it encompasses all nondiscretionary payments for work performed.
What it does not hold
- § 226.7(f)(1)'s security-services carve-out pays its premium at the “regular base hourly rate of compensation” — the base rate, not the rate Ferra construes. That carve-out sunsets January 1, 2027.
Relied on by 14 pages
Alvarado v. Dart Container Corp. of California (2018) 4 Cal.5th 542Drafted from the opinion
Cal. Supreme Court · 2018-03-05
The per-hour value of a flat-sum bonus for regular-rate purposes is the bonus divided by the nonovertime hours actually worked — not by total hours, which is the federal method.
What it does not hold
- It does not decide whether the regular rate is properly calculated on a pay-period or a workweek basis. The court inserted footnote 2 by modification order on April 25, 2018 saying so in terms: the opinion “follows the lead of the parties in using the pay period”, but “we did not grant review to decide” the question and “nothing in this opinion should be interpreted as deciding that question.” This site's regular-rate tools model a workweek and therefore assert nothing the footnote reserves.
- 29 C.F.R. § 778.109's federal method is not applicable to California — Alvarado declined to follow it.
PostureModified April 25, 2018 (S232607M), inserting footnote 2 and renumbering footnotes 2 through 12.
Relied on by 11 pages
Donohue v. AMN Services, LLC (2021) 11 Cal.5th 58Published characterization
Cal. Supreme Court · 2021-02-25
Employers cannot round time punches in the meal period context, and a short or missed meal punch raises a rebuttable presumption of non-compliance.
What it does not hold
- Meal-period specific. General time-clock rounding was expressly left open, and is the question pending in Camp v. Home Depot (S277518).
Relied on by 9 pages
Estrada v. Royalty Carpet Mills, Inc. (2024) 15 Cal.5th 582Verified against the opinion
Cal. Supreme Court · 2024-01-18
Trial courts lack inherent authority to strike a PAGA claim on manageability grounds based on judicial economy — the Chief Justice's own section heading.
What it does not hold
- Not a due process holding. The court expressly reserved: “we express no opinion as to the hypothetical questions of whether, and under what circumstances, a defendant's right to due process might ever support striking a PAGA claim.” The due process limits on extrapolated proof are Duran's.
- It preserves what a defense guide exists to do: the holding “does not preclude trial courts from limiting the types of evidence a plaintiff may present or using other tools to assure that a PAGA claim can be effectively tried.”
- Allison v. Dignity Health (2025) 112 Cal.App.5th 192 is an Estrada application, not a construction of § 2699(p).
Relied on by 9 pages
Naranjo v. Spectrum Security Services, Inc. (2024) 15 Cal.5th 1056Published characterization
Cal. Supreme Court · 2024-05-06
A good-faith belief in compliance defeats the § 226(e) “knowing and intentional” scienter element.
What it does not hold
- Distinct from Naranjo (2022) 13 Cal.5th 93, the wages decision.
CitationNaranjo II's official citation was wrong in one citation index for months. Read the opinion header, never the index.
Relied on by 9 pages
Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court (2012) 53 Cal.4th 1004Published characterization
Cal. Supreme Court · 2012-04-12
An employer satisfies its meal period obligation by relieving the employee of all duty, relinquishing control, permitting a reasonable opportunity to take an uninterrupted 30-minute break, and not impeding or discouraging it — it need not police that the break is taken.
What it does not hold
- It does not require an employer to police that a provided break is actually taken — the obligation is to relieve, relinquish control and not impede.
Relied on by 8 pages
Naranjo v. Spectrum Security Services, Inc. (2022) 13 Cal.5th 93Published characterization
Cal. Supreme Court · 2022-05-23
Meal and rest period premium pay under § 226.7 constitutes wages, and is therefore subject to the same reporting and timing rules as any other compensation.
What it does not hold
- Distinct from the 2024 Naranjo good-faith decision, (2024) 15 Cal.5th 1056, which construes § 226(e)'s scienter element.
Relied on by 8 pages
Duran v. U.S. Bank National Assn. (2014) 59 Cal.4th 1Verified against the opinion
Cal. Supreme Court · 2014-05-29
A trial plan using statistical sampling to establish classwide liability must comport with due process: the sample must be developed with expert input, be genuinely random and representative, and produce a manageable margin of error, and the defendant must be permitted to impeach the model.
What it does not hold
- Duran contains zero references to Sargon — confirmed against a control query, so the null is real rather than an indexing artifact. Neither does the other's work.
- Whether the 20 names picked for the representative witness group included or excluded the two named plaintiffs is not cleanly resolvable from the opinion, so no subtraction between “picked 20” and “21 testified” is asserted.
Relied on by 7 pages
Rodriguez v. Lawrence Equipment, Inc. (2024) 106 Cal.App.5th 645Drafted from the opinion
Cal. Ct. App., 2d Dist., Div. 3 · 2024-10-10
An arbitration award, once confirmed, finding that the plaintiff suffered no Labor Code violation has issue-preclusive effect in the court action, so the plaintiff is not an aggrieved employee and the non-individual PAGA claims cannot proceed.
What it does not hold
- Does not decide whether an unconfirmed award has that effect or how a partial finding is treated.
Relied on by 5 pages
Sciborski v. Pacific Bell Directory (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 1152Verified against the opinion
Cal. Ct. App., 4th Dist. · 2012-05-08
A commission is not earned until the express contractual conditions are met, so § 221 does not bar recouping an advance if they are not satisfied; once satisfied, the commission is a wage and cannot be recouped.
What it does not hold
- The “legal conditions precedent” passage is Sciborski QUOTING Koehl v. Verio, Inc. (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 1329, 1335, not its own formulation; the advance-recoupment rule cites Steinhebel (2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 696, 705.
- Sciborski contains zero references to Schachter. The two leading authorities on when compensation is earned do not cross-reference.
Relied on by 5 pages
Stone v. Alameda Health System (2024) 16 Cal.5th 1040Verified against the opinion
Cal. Supreme Court · 2024-08-15
Public entities are not subject to §§ 226.7, 512 or 1174, § 220(b) exempts §§ 200–211 and 215–219 as to employees directly employed by the entity, and public entity employers are not subject to PAGA civil penalties of either kind.
What it does not hold
- § 1198.5 is not in this case — the records claim was §§ 1174, 1174.5 and 1175.
- There is no Iskanian-line discussion; Iskanian appears once, for background, and what was disapproved is Sargent.
- Gov. Code § 818 was expressly not decided, so there is no sovereign-immunity holding.
- Also expressly reserved: the § 226 wage statement ruling, and all pleaded statutes outside the § 220(b) ranges.
CitationThe official citation was verified from three later published opinions, including the Supreme Court's own In re Ja.O., not from the slip header. CourtListener's cluster citations array is empty and must not be relied on.
Relied on by 5 pages
Adolph v. Uber Technologies, Inc. (2023) 14 Cal.5th 1104Published characterization
Cal. Supreme Court · 2023-07-17
An employee whose individual PAGA claim is compelled to arbitration retains standing to litigate the non-individual claims in court.
What it does not hold
- Review was limited to standing; the opinion decides nothing else.
Relied on by 4 pages
Balderas v. Fresh Start Harvesting, Inc. (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 533Drafted from the opinion
Cal. Ct. App., 2d Dist., Div. 6 · 2024-03-20
An employee who does not bring an individual claim may nevertheless bring a PAGA action for herself and other employees; standing has Adolph’s two elements and Viking River’s standing passage does not bind California courts.
What it does not hold
- Leeper v. Shipt (2024) 107 Cal.App.5th 1001 reads § 2699(a) the other way; the question is before the Supreme Court in Leeper (S289305).
PostureFiled March 20, 2024; certified for publication April 18, 2024.
Relied on by 4 pages
CRST Expedited, Inc. v. Superior Court (2025) 112 Cal.App.5th 872Drafted from the opinion
Cal. Ct. App., 5th Dist. · 2025-07-07
A PAGA complaint pleading only non-individual claims may proceed under the pre-reform text; the trial court properly denied a motion to compel arbitration of a claim the plaintiff did not plead.
What it does not hold
- Review granted September 17, 2025 (S292005) and held for Leeper v. Shipt (S289305); citable for persuasive value only while held.
PostureReview granted and held, September 17, 2025 (S292005).
Relied on by 4 pages
Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court (2018) 4 Cal.5th 903Published characterization
Cal. Supreme Court · 2018-04-30
Adopts the ABC test for independent contractor classification.
Relied on by 4 pages
Hohenshelt v. Superior Court (2025) 18 Cal.5th 310Verified against the opinion
Cal. Supreme Court · 2025-08-11
Code of Civil Procedure § 1281.98 is not preempted by the FAA, but late payment forfeits the right to arbitrate only where the nonpayment was willful, grossly negligent, or fraudulent.
What it does not hold
- The dissent's footnote 2 says § 1281.97 “makes no allowance for parties to agree otherwise” as to an EXTENSION of the due date. Both sections defer identically to an agreed payment window; only § 1281.98(a)(2) adds the agreed-extension clause. Two site surfaces described the distinction the other way and were corrected.
- Neither section's material-breach framing distinguishes them — both use it, in identical words.
Relied on by 4 pages
Leeper v. Shipt, Inc. (2024) 107 Cal.App.5th 1001Published characterization
Cal. Ct. App., 2d Dist. · 2024-12-30
Every PAGA action necessarily includes both an individual and a representative claim, because § 2699(a) authorizes an action “on behalf of the employee and other current or former employees” and “and” is conjunctive.
What it does not hold
- Leeper construed the amended § 2699(a); Galarsa's footnote 2 presumes the Supreme Court will analyze the former version, given the March 2024 filing date.
PostureReview granted 2025-04-16 on the court's own motion, S289305. Rodriguez (S290182), Williams (S291199) and CRST Expedited (S292005) are granted-and-held. Balderas v. Fresh Start Harvesting (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 533 alone remains citable published authority on the split.
Relied on by 4 pages
Martinez v. Combs (2010) 49 Cal.4th 35Published characterization
Cal. Supreme Court · 2010-05-20
Defines the employment relationship for wage-order purposes.
Relied on by 4 pages
Moniz v. Adecco USA, Inc. (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 56Verified against the opinion
Cal. Ct. App., 1st Dist. · 2021-11-30
Sets out the standard for approving a PAGA settlement, including the requirement that the proposed settlement be submitted to the agency at the same time it is submitted to the court.
What it does not hold
- Disapproved by Turrieta “insofar as its analysis and conclusion conflict with ours.”
- Its subdivision citations are pre-reform and stale: it cites former § 2699(l)(2) for settlement approval (now § 2699(s)(2)) and recites distribution as 75/25 under former § 2699(i) (now § 2699(m), and 65/35).
- Taduran distinguished it as an allocation-among-classes case.
PostureDisapproved in part by Turrieta (2024). The published remand (A168481/A168872, Feb. 28, 2025) dismissed both appeals and declined to widen the personal-interest reservation.
CitationYear discrepancy: the Turrieta slip prints “(2022)”; the filing date is 2021-11-30 and the deciding court's own later opinion prints “(2021)”, which is what this site uses. Flagged for the attorney's confirmation.
Relied on by 4 pages
Moniz v. Adecco USA, Inc. (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 56Drafted from the opinion
Cal. Ct. App., 1st Dist. · 2021-11-30
A PAGA settlement must be fair, reasonable and adequate in view of PAGA’s purposes, and the employees’ share must be allocated among all aggrieved employees on a justified basis.
What it does not hold
- Its standing holding for an overlapping PAGA plaintiff was disapproved by Turrieta v. Lyft (2024) 16 Cal.5th 664.
PostureDisapproved in part, Turrieta v. Lyft, Inc. (2024) 16 Cal.5th 664.
Relied on by 4 pages
Murphy v. Kenneth Cole Productions, Inc. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 1094Verified against the opinion
Cal. Supreme Court · 2007-04-16
The § 226.7 additional hour of pay “constitutes a wage or premium pay” governed by the three-year limitations period, not a penalty.
What it does not hold
- Its test for a penalty (a fixed amount additional to actual loss) is the court’s description of §§ 226.3, 1197.1, 226(e) and 203, not a holding about PAGA recoverability.
Relied on by 4 pages
Parra Rodriguez v. Packers Sanitation Services Ltd., LLC (2025) 109 Cal.App.5th 69Drafted from the opinion
Cal. Ct. App., 4th Dist., Div. 1 · 2025-02-26
A complaint pleading only non-individual PAGA claims has no individual claim to compel to arbitration; Leeper is not followed and Balderas’s holding is not dicta.
What it does not hold
- Review granted May 14, 2025 (S290182) and held for Leeper; whether a headless complaint is permissible is reserved for a pleading challenge.
PostureReview granted and held, May 14, 2025 (S290182).
Relied on by 4 pages
Taduran v. James R. Glidewell Dental Ceramics, Inc. (Cal. Ct. App., June 17, 2026, G064718, as mod. July 1, 2026)Verified against the opinion
Cal. Ct. App., 4th Dist., Div. 3 · 2026-06-17
After calculating the maximum civil penalty on a per-pay-period basis, the trial court “is not precluded from using any reasonable method to reduce that amount, including applying a reduction on a percentage, per pay period or per employee basis” under § 2699(e)(2).
What it does not hold
- Does not construe the § 2699(g) and (h) cap standards; the conduct predated the reform.
PostureFiled May 26, 2026; certified for publication June 17, 2026; modified July 1, 2026 (G064718M).
Relied on by 4 pages
Williams v. Alacrity Solutions Group, LLC (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 932Drafted from the opinion
Cal. Ct. App., 2d Dist., Div. 5 · 2025-04-22
Follows Leeper: a PAGA action necessarily includes an individual claim, and a plaintiff whose own claims are time-barred cannot maintain a representative-only action.
What it does not hold
- Review granted and held for Leeper (S291199); Osuna (2025) reaches the opposite result on the limitations point.
PostureReview granted and held (S291199).
Relied on by 4 pages
Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531Drafted from the opinion
Cal. Supreme Court · 2017-07-13
A PAGA plaintiff may obtain statewide employee contact information in discovery without a merits showing; recovery may be had for each violation whether or not pursuant to a uniform policy, and standing is tested by affirmative defense, not by resisting discovery.
Relied on by 4 pages
Iloff v. LaPaille (2025) 18 Cal.5th 551Verified against the opinion
Cal. Supreme Court · 2025-08-21
The § 1194.2(b) good faith defense requires proof the employer “made a reasonable attempt to determine the requirements of the law governing minimum wages”; ignorance of the law is insufficient, and the question is the judge's rather than the jury's.
What it does not hold
- Expressly undecided: the extent of inquiry generally required, and whether theft or nonperformance allegations could reduce an award.
- The second issue is the paid sick leave law, not § 203 waiting time.
- The opinion decides nothing about who counts as an employer; the Dynamex-based employee finding went unchallenged.
PostureThe published remand (A163504, Dec. 23, 2025) holds § 558.1 supports a private right of action and that the statute's “may” marks the employee's election rather than a judicial discretion to excuse the officer.
CitationNo Cal.5th citation appears in the opinion. The reporter cite was closed from four later published opinions, three with pincites.
Relied on by 3 pages
Kirby v. Immoos Fire Protection, Inc. (2012) 53 Cal.4th 1244Published characterization
Cal. Supreme Court · 2012-04-30
Neither § 1194 nor § 218.5 authorizes an attorney fee award to any party who prevails on a § 226.7 meal or rest period claim.
Relied on by 3 pages
Morillion v. Royal Packing Co. (2000) 22 Cal.4th 575Citation confirmed only
Cal. Supreme Court · 2000-03-27
No holding is stated here. The citation is confirmed; the decision has not been read against its opinion for this site.
Relied on by 3 pages
Sargent v. Board of Trustees of Cal. State University (2021) 61 Cal.App.5th 658Citation confirmed only
Cal. Ct. App., 1st Dist. · 2021-03-09
No holding is stated here. The citation is confirmed; the decision has not been read against its opinion for this site.
PostureDisapproved as to nondefault penalties by Stone v. Alameda Health System.
Relied on by 3 pages
Arias v. Superior Court (2009) 46 Cal.4th 969Drafted from the opinion
Cal. Supreme Court · 2009-06-29
A PAGA representative action need not satisfy class-action requirements; the employee sues as the proxy of the state’s enforcement agencies, and the judgment binds nonparty employees as to civil penalties but not as to their own remedies.
What it does not hold
- Post-Proposition 64 UCL representative actions must meet class requirements.
Relied on by 2 pages
Augustus v. ABM Security Services, Inc. (2016) 2 Cal.5th 257Verified against the opinion
Cal. Supreme Court · 2016-12-22
On-call rest periods are not rest periods: an employer must relieve employees of all duties and relinquish control during rest breaks.
What it does not hold
- Abrogated for the security services industry only, by § 226.7(f)(5), “to the extent that decision is in conflict with this subdivision.” That carve-out sunsets January 1, 2027, at which point Augustus governs that industry again.
PostureAbrogated in part by statute for security services until January 1, 2027 (§ 226.7(f), (g)).
Relied on by 2 pages
Bell v. Farmers Insurance Exchange (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 715Verified against the opinion
Cal. Ct. App., 1st Dist. · 2004-03-09
The one published California case describing the successful use of statistical sampling at trial in a wage and hour class action, and the affirmative model against which Duran measured the plan before it.
What it does not hold
- Everything this site records about Bell is Duran describing Bell at page 724, rather than a reading of Bell itself.
Relied on by 2 pages
Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC (2014) 59 Cal.4th 348Published characterization
Cal. Supreme Court · 2014-06-23
Pre-dispute PAGA representative claim waivers are unenforceable.
Relied on by 2 pages
Kullar v. Foot Locker Retail, Inc. (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 116Published characterization
Cal. Ct. App., 1st Dist. · 2008-11-18
A court approving a class or PAGA settlement must be presented with a record adequate to an independent assessment of the settlement's value.
CitationA second appeal exists at (2011) 191 Cal.App.4th 1201; the site cites the 2008 decision, which is the correct one for the valuation-record holding.
Relied on by 2 pages
Morales v. 22nd Dist. Agricultural Assn. (2018) 25 Cal.App.5th 85Published characterization
Cal. Ct. App., 4th Dist. · 2018-07-25
Joint-employer status does not transfer an exemption.
Relied on by 2 pages
Pineda v. Bank of America, N.A. (2010) 50 Cal.4th 1389Verified against the opinion
Cal. Supreme Court · 2010-11-18
§ 203 penalties carry a three-year limitations period whether or not unpaid wages are also sought, and are not recoverable as UCL restitution.
Relied on by 2 pages
Serrano v. Aerotek, Inc. (2018) 21 Cal.App.5th 773Drafted from the opinion
Cal. Ct. App., 1st Dist. · 2018-03-09
Rejects automatic vicarious liability for a coemployer’s meal-period breach and finds the staffing firm satisfied its own duty on the particular record.
What it does not hold
- Issuing a lawful policy alone does not immunize the staffing firm regardless of implementation.
PostureDisapproved in Donohue to the extent inconsistent with the meal-record presumption; the Staffing profile applies Donohue.
Relied on by 2 pages
Thurman v. Bayshore Transit Management, Inc. (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 1112Drafted from the opinion
Cal. Ct. App., 4th Dist. · 2012-02-14
§ 558’s civil penalty reaches a violation of the wage order’s rest-period provision through its “hours and days of work” clause; wage order § 20 penalties cannot be stacked on § 558’s; § 226.7 itself carries the § 2699(f) default.
What it does not hold
- Disapproved by ZB, N.A. v. Superior Court to the extent it treated § 558’s unpaid-wages amount as a civil penalty.
PostureDisapproved on another point by ZB, N.A. v. Superior Court.
Relied on by 2 pages
Troester v. Starbucks Corp. (2018) 5 Cal.5th 829Citation confirmed only
Cal. Supreme Court · 2018-07-26
No holding is stated here. The citation is confirmed; the decision has not been read against its opinion for this site.
Relied on by 2 pages
Turrieta v. Lyft, Inc. (2024) 16 Cal.5th 664Verified against the opinion
Cal. Supreme Court · 2024-08-01
A PAGA plaintiff's status as the state's proxy confers no right to intervene in, move to vacate the judgment in, or require a court to receive objections to another employee's overlapping PAGA action.
What it does not hold
- The “reverse auction” question was recited and expressly left unresolved, not decided.
- The court never reached preclusion of an approved settlement on parallel actions, and no settlement dollar figure appears in the opinion.
- Six matters were expressly reserved: operation of the 2024 amendments; whether a PAGA plaintiff has a § 387 personal interest; whether the catalogued procedural problems alone defeat a qualifying intervenor; whether the STATE may intervene, vacate or object; Uribe's correctness; and the state's right to object.
- § 2699(q) preserves consolidation of overlapping PAGA actions, which is the route that survives Turrieta.
CitationThe official citation was verified from two later published opinions that pincite it (Moniz on remand at 710; Soto at 687), not from the slip opinion, which carries none, and not from CourtListener, whose citations array is empty.
Relied on by 2 pages
Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana (2022) 596 U.S. 639Published characterization
U.S. Supreme Court · 2022-06-15
The FAA preempts a state rule barring arbitration of an individual PAGA claim.
Relied on by 2 pages
Wesson v. Staples the Office Superstore, LLC (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 746Citation confirmed only
Cal. Ct. App., 2d Dist. · 2021-09-09
No holding is stated here. The citation is confirmed; the decision has not been read against its opinion for this site.
PostureDisapproved by Estrada v. Royalty Carpet Mills (2024) 15 Cal.5th 582.
Relied on by 2 pages
ZB, N.A. v. Superior Court (2019) 8 Cal.5th 175Published characterization
Cal. Supreme Court · 2019-09-12
The “amount sufficient to recover underpaid wages” in § 558 is not a civil penalty recoverable through PAGA; only § 558's fixed $50/$100 component can be pursued.
Relied on by 2 pages
Amaral v. Cintas Corp. No. 2 (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 1157Verified against the opinion
Cal. Ct. App., 1st Dist. · 2008-06-11
Construing the initial-versus-subsequent escalator in former sections 210 and 225.5, the court adopted the notice-based reading: an employer is not on notice that conduct is a violation until it has been told so.
What it does not hold
- Amaral construed sections 210 and 225.5, not section 2699(f)(2). It is a reference point for the distinction rather than a construction of the PAGA rate.
Relied on by 1 page
Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services, Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 83Published characterization
Cal. Supreme Court · 2000-08-24
Sets the minimum requirements for an enforceable employment arbitration agreement.
Relied on by 1 page
Brown v. Ralphs Grocery Co. (2018) 28 Cal.App.5th 824Drafted from the opinion
Cal. Ct. App., 2d Dist. · 2018-10-31
A PAGA notice that is a string of legal conclusions parroting the Labor Code provisions fails § 2699.3; only the § 226(a) claim, which added facts, survived, and a notice filed five years later was outside the one-year period with no equitable tolling.
What it does not hold
- § 558 need not be named in the notice because it is a remedy; relation back was remanded solely as to the § 226(a) claim.
Relied on by 1 page
Camp v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 638Citation confirmed only
Cal. Ct. App., 6th Dist. · 2022-10-24
No holding is stated here. The citation is confirmed; the decision has not been read against its opinion for this site.
PosturePending, S277518. Fully briefed since late 2023; on the court's April 2026 pending-issues list; still awaiting argument. Only opinion of record is (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 638. The question is general time-clock rounding, which Donohue expressly left open.
Relied on by 1 page
Carrington v. Starbucks Corp. (2018) 30 Cal.App.5th 504Drafted from the opinion
Cal. Ct. App., 4th Dist., Div. 1 · 2018-11-27
Affirms a meal-period PAGA judgment under §§ 226.7 and 512 in which the trial court applied § 558’s $50 initial-violation penalty and reduced it to $5 per violation under § 2699(e)(2) as otherwise unjust, arbitrary and oppressive, on representative proof of a uniform policy.
What it does not hold
- No subsequent-violation rate was at issue, and the opinion does not say whether its violations were counted per shift or per pay period.
Relied on by 1 page
Cochran v. Schwan’s Home Service, Inc. (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 1137Drafted from the opinion
Cal. Ct. App., 2d Dist. · 2014-08-12
Required work use of a personal cell phone requires reimbursement of a reasonable percentage of the bill, including unlimited plans and bills paid by someone else.
Relied on by 1 page
Galarsa v. Dolgen California, LLC (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 639Drafted from the opinion
Cal. Ct. App., 5th Dist. · 2023-02-02
Distinguishes a plaintiff’s own “Type A” PAGA claim, which may be compelled to arbitration, from “Type O” claims for violations suffered by other employees, which stay in court; standing does not evaporate when an employer enforces an arbitration agreement.
What it does not hold
- Opinion following transfer from the Supreme Court in light of Viking River; preclusion is addressed only through the rule against splitting a primary right.
Relied on by 1 page
Galarsa v. Dolgen California, LLC (Cal. Ct. App., Oct. 8, 2025, F089004, F089171)Drafted from the opinion
Cal. Ct. App., 5th Dist. · 2025-09-09
Under the pre-reform text a representative action pleading only non-individual claims was permitted; follows Balderas and CRST against Leeper.
What it does not hold
- Partially published (parts I.D and II of the Discussion excepted); the question is held in the Supreme Court in Leeper (S289305).
PostureFiled September 9, 2025; certified for partial publication October 8, 2025.
Relied on by 1 page
Gallo v. Wood Ranch USA, Inc. (2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 621Citation confirmed only
Cal. Ct. App., 2d Dist. · 2022-07-19
No holding is stated here. The citation is confirmed; the decision has not been read against its opinion for this site.
PostureDisapproved by Hohenshelt v. Superior Court (2025) 18 Cal.5th 310, one of eleven Court of Appeal decisions in the pre-Hohenshelt arbitration-fee line.
Relied on by 1 page
Gateway Community Charters v. Spiess (2017) 9 Cal.App.5th 499Citation confirmed only
Cal. Ct. App., 3d Dist. · 2017-03-07
No holding is stated here. The citation is confirmed; the decision has not been read against its opinion for this site.
PostureIts taxing and eminent-domain test was called questionable and distinguished in Stone.
Relied on by 1 page
Gattuso v. Harte-Hanks Shoppers, Inc. (2007) 42 Cal.4th 554Citation confirmed only
Cal. Supreme Court · 2007-11-26
No holding is stated here. The citation is confirmed; the decision has not been read against its opinion for this site.
Relied on by 1 page
Gunther v. Alaska Airlines, Inc. (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 334Verified against the opinion
Cal. Ct. App., 4th Dist., Div. 1 · 2021-12-01
§ 226.3’s heightened penalties apply only where the employer fails to provide a wage statement or fails to keep the § 226(a) records; an inaccurate or incomplete statement carries the § 2699(f)(2) default, and the court “decline[s] to follow Raines on this point.”
What it does not hold
- Does not disturb Raines’s holding that injury and scienter are not elements of the PAGA claim.
- Certified for partial publication; parts B and C of the Discussion are unpublished.
Relied on by 1 page
Johnson v. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc. (2021) 66 Cal.App.5th 924Drafted from the opinion
Cal. Ct. App., 4th Dist., Div. 1 · 2021-07-21
A time-barred individual claim does not strip a plaintiff of standing to bring a PAGA action under Kim and former § 2699(c).
What it does not hold
- Displaced for post-June 19, 2024 notices by § 2699(c)(1); Williams v. Alacrity (2025) declines to follow it under the former text.
Relied on by 1 page
Kim v. Reins International California, Inc. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 73Verified against the opinion
Cal. Supreme Court · 2020-03-12
Under former § 2699(c) an “aggrieved employee” is one employed by the alleged violator “against whom one or more of the alleged violations was committed”; settling individual claims does not strip standing.
What it does not hold
- For notices filed on or after June 19, 2024, § 2699(c)(1) requires that the plaintiff personally suffered each violation alleged within the one-year period, which Kim’s one-violation gateway no longer describes.
Relied on by 1 page
Koehl v. Verio, Inc. (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 1329Verified against the opinion
Cal. Ct. App., 1st Dist. · 2006-09-08
A commission is earned when the employee has perfected the right to payment — when all of the legal conditions precedent have been met, those conditions being a matter of contract subject to common law and statutory limits.
What it does not hold
- The passage is often attributed to Sciborski, which quotes it at 1335 rather than formulating it.
Relied on by 1 page
Lopez v. Friant & Associates, LLC (2017) 15 Cal.App.5th 773Drafted from the opinion
Cal. Ct. App., 1st Dist., Div. 1 · 2017-09-26
§ 226(e)’s penalty is a statutory penalty, not a civil penalty, so its injury and knowing-and-intentional elements belong to the employee’s own claim and are not elements of a PAGA claim for a § 226(a) violation.
What it does not hold
- Leaves open (fn. 6) whether § 226.3 or § 2699(f) supplies the PAGA penalty, with inadvertence relevant to amount under § 2699(e).
Relied on by 1 page
Morgan v. United Retail Inc. (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 1136Citation confirmed only
Cal. Ct. App., 2d Dist., Div. 7 · 2010-06-23
No holding is stated here. The citation is confirmed; the decision has not been read against its opinion for this site.
Relied on by 1 page
Noe v. Superior Court (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 316Drafted from the opinion
Cal. Ct. App., 2d Dist., Div. 7 · 2015-06-01
§ 226.8 civil penalties for willful misclassification have no direct private right of action and are enforceable only by the Labor Commissioner or through PAGA; a joint employer that knows of a coemployer’s willful misclassification and fails to remedy it “engage[s] in” the violation, but status alone does not.
What it does not hold
- Each defendant must itself have voluntarily and knowingly misclassified the worker; the amount within the § 226.8 range is not addressed.
Relied on by 1 page
Raines v. Coastal Pacific Food Distributors, Inc. (2018) 23 Cal.App.5th 667Verified against the opinion
Cal. Ct. App., 3d Dist. · 2018-05-22
A representative PAGA claim for civil penalties for a § 226(a) violation requires neither proof of injury nor a knowing and intentional violation; § 226.3 sets out a civil penalty for all violations of § 226, so the claim falls under § 2699(a) rather than the § 2699(f) default.
What it does not hold
- Gunther v. Alaska Airlines (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 334 declines to follow Raines on § 226.3’s reach. A published conflict; this site states both readings and models the Gunther default as the employer-side measure.
- Fixes no amount for a § 226.3 penalty in a PAGA action and does not decide whether the $1,000 “subsequent citation” tier needs a prior citation.
Relied on by 1 page
Sargon Enterprises, Inc. v. University of Southern California (2012) 55 Cal.4th 747Verified against the opinion
Cal. Supreme Court · 2012-11-26
Trial courts have a substantial gatekeeping responsibility under Evidence Code sections 801(b) and 802 to exclude expert opinion that is speculative, rests on matter an expert may not reasonably rely on, or is unsupported by the material relied on.
What it does not hold
- A lost-profits case, not wage and hour. It states the general California gatekeeping standard and nothing specific to this practice area.
- The gatekeeping role “does not involve choosing between competing expert opinions”, does not permit the court to weigh probative value or substitute its own opinion, and does not resolve scientific controversies.
- Sargon and Duran do not cross-reference — confirmed against a control query, so the null is real.
Relied on by 1 page
Schachter v. Citigroup, Inc. (2009) 47 Cal.4th 610Verified against the opinion
Cal. Supreme Court · 2009-11-02
A forfeiture provision in a voluntary incentive plan does not run afoul of the Labor Code, because no earned, unpaid wages remain outstanding on termination according to the terms of the plan.
What it does not hold
- The sentence that payment “may be contingent upon the happening of a future event, such as continued employment” is the Supreme Court reciting and affirming the Court of Appeal, not its own holding sentence.
- Schachter and Sciborski do not cross-reference. The two leading authorities on when compensation is earned each stand alone.
Relied on by 1 page
Stephen Slesinger, Inc. v. Walt Disney Co. (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 736Citation confirmed only
Cal. Ct. App., 2d Dist. · 2007-09-25
No holding is stated here. The citation is confirmed; the decision has not been read against its opinion for this site.
PostureDistinguished, not disapproved, by Estrada.
Relied on by 1 page
Steinhebel v. Los Angeles Times Communications (2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 696Citation confirmed only
Cal. Ct. App., 2d Dist. · 2005-02-01
No holding is stated here. The citation is confirmed; the decision has not been read against its opinion for this site.
Relied on by 1 page
Villacres v. ABM Industries Inc. (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 562Verified against the opinion
Cal. Ct. App., 2d Dist., Div. 1 · 2010-10-22
PAGA is limited to civil penalties. § 203’s waiting-time penalty is the employee’s statutory penalty outside PAGA; § 256 authorizes “a civil penalty in the form of waiting time pay for the same statutory violation,” and “only the recovery of the civil penalty falls within the PAGA.” A provision with its own civil penalty (§ 558 for § 510) is recovered at that amount; one without (§ 2802) at the § 2699(f) default (pp. 579–580).
What it does not hold
- A res judicata decision. The passage explains PAGA’s structure; it fixes no § 256 amount and does not decide whether § 256 imports § 203’s willfulness element.
Relied on by 1 page
Wood v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 742Verified against the opinion
Cal. Ct. App., 4th Dist., Div. 1 · 2023-02-24
§ 248.5(e)’s limitation of a person enforcing the paid-sick-leave article “on behalf of the public” to equitable, injunctive or restitutionary relief refers to UCL enforcement, not PAGA; an aggrieved employee may bring a PAGA action for civil penalties for violations of §§ 245–249.
What it does not hold
- Does not decide which schedule supplies the penalty, the § 2699(f) default or the § 248.5 administrative penalties, nor whether PAGA penalties are “equitable” relief (fn. 16 as modified March 23, 2023).
PostureModified March 23, 2023 (D079528), no change in judgment.
Relied on by 1 page
Bernstein v. Virgin America, Inc. (9th Cir. 2021) 990 F.3d 1157Drafted from the opinion
U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Cir. · 2021-02-23
Applying Amaral, heightened “subsequent violation” PAGA penalties are not available for the period before the employer was notified that its conduct was unlawful; the district court’s award at the heightened rate was vacated.
What it does not hold
- A federal construction of California law, persuasive only; the merits holdings on Wage Order 9 and the Railway Labor Act are not relied on here.
S.G. Borello & Sons, Inc. v. Dept. of Industrial Relations (1989) 48 Cal.3d 341Published characterization
Cal. Supreme Court · 1989-03-23
Supplies the multifactor test for employment status where an exemption from the ABC test applies.
Bright v. 99¢ Only Stores (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 1472Drafted from the opinion
Cal. Ct. App., 2d Dist., Div. 5 · 2010-11-12
A wage-order suitable-seating requirement is enforceable through § 1198, and the § 2699(f) default penalty is available for its violation because the wage order’s own § 20 penalty does not displace it.
What it does not hold
- Does not quantify the penalty or decide how pay periods are counted for a seating violation.
Caliber Bodyworks, Inc. v. Superior Court (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 365Verified against the opinion
Cal. Ct. App., 2d Dist., Div. 7 · 2005-11-23
PAGA’s notice requirement attaches only to a claim for a civil penalty the LWDA could assess for a listed violation; claims for wages and for employee-recoverable statutory penalties, § 203 the paradigm, are outside it. § 256 is the civil penalty for the same final-pay violation (pp. 377–378, as quoted in Dunlap and Villacres).
What it does not hold
- Disapproved by ZB, N.A. v. Superior Court to the extent it treated § 558’s unpaid-wages amount as a civil penalty.
- Footnote 16’s description of § 226.7 pay as a statutory penalty did not survive Murphy v. Kenneth Cole.
De Leon v. Juanita's Foods (2022) 85 Cal.App.5th 740Citation confirmed only
Cal. Ct. App., 2d Dist. · 2022-11-23
No holding is stated here. The citation is confirmed; the decision has not been read against its opinion for this site.
PostureDisapproved by Hohenshelt v. Superior Court (2025) 18 Cal.5th 310, one of eleven Court of Appeal decisions in the pre-Hohenshelt arbitration-fee line.
Diaz v. Grill Concepts Services, Inc. (2018) 23 Cal.App.5th 859Drafted from the opinion
Cal. Ct. App., 2d Dist. · 2018-05-24
§ 203 willfulness is defeated only by a good-faith dispute that any wages are due (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 13520); ignorance of the law and a half-hearted investigation do not defeat it, and once willfulness is found the court has no discretion to reduce the penalty.
What it does not hold
- Contrasts § 203’s mandatory penalty with § 2699’s discretionary regime; it is not a PAGA holding.
Dunlap v. Superior Court (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 330Drafted from the opinion
Cal. Ct. App., 2d Dist., Div. 3 · 2006-07-27
Following Caliber, claims for §§ 226(e), 203 and 226.7 recoveries are employee-recoverable statutory penalties outside PAGA’s § 2699.3 notice requirement, which reaches only LWDA civil penalties such as §§ 225.5 and 256.
What it does not hold
- Does not discuss § 558, § 1197.1 or the § 2699(f) default; its § 226.7 characterization predates Murphy.
Esparza v. KS Industries, L.P. (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 1228Drafted from the opinion
Cal. Ct. App., 5th Dist. · 2017-08-02
For the Iskanian rule, “civil penalties” are recoveries allocated in part to the LWDA; § 558’s unpaid-wages amount, paid wholly to the employee, is victim-specific relief arbitrable under the FAA while the $50 and $100 amounts stay in court.
What it does not hold
- ZB, N.A. reached the same bottom line on different reasoning (the wages are not recoverable under PAGA at all) and rejected the premise that the employee could sue for them in his own right.
Esparza v. Safeway, Inc. (2019) 36 Cal.App.5th 42Drafted from the opinion
Cal. Ct. App., 2d Dist., Div. 4 · 2019-06-10
The § 226.7 hour of pay is a premium wage that vests on an actual violation; a UCL class that disclaimed proof of classwide violations had no measurable restitution; a PAGA claim cannot relate back to a complaint filed before the § 2699.3 notice.
What it does not hold
- Does not decide whether proven premiums are UCL restitution.
Espinoza v. Superior Court (2022) 83 Cal.App.5th 761Citation confirmed only
Cal. Ct. App., 2d Dist. · 2022-10-05
No holding is stated here. The citation is confirmed; the decision has not been read against its opinion for this site.
PostureDisapproved by Hohenshelt v. Superior Court (2025) 18 Cal.5th 310, one of eleven Court of Appeal decisions in the pre-Hohenshelt arbitration-fee line.
Faragher v. City of Boca Raton (1998) 524 U.S. 775Published characterization
U.S. Supreme Court · 1998-06-26
Supplies the affirmative defense to vicarious liability for supervisor harassment.
Ford v. The Silver F, Inc. (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 553Drafted from the opinion
Cal. Ct. App., 3d Dist. · 2025-03-25
Part of the 2025 line on the headless question under the pre-reform text.
What it does not hold
- Cited for the posture of the split.
Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. v. Superior Court (2010) 191 Cal.App.4th 210Drafted from the opinion
Cal. Ct. App., 2d Dist., Div. 4 · 2010-12-22
Follows Bright: a wage-order seating violation is actionable under § 1198 through PAGA on the § 2699(f) default; wage order § 20(A) is not a civil penalty “specifically provided” that displaces it.
What it does not hold
- Does not reach the merits of the seating claim.
PostureRehearing denied January 10, 2011, with modification; review denied March 16, 2011 (S190270).
Huff v. Securitas Security Services USA, Inc. (2018) 23 Cal.App.5th 745Drafted from the opinion
Cal. Ct. App., 6th Dist. · 2018-05-23
Under former § 2699(c), an employee affected by at least one Labor Code violation may pursue PAGA penalties for all violations alleged, including ones the employee did not personally suffer.
What it does not hold
- Displaced for notices filed on or after June 19, 2024 by § 2699(c)(1), which requires that the plaintiff personally suffered each violation alleged.
Hutcheson v. Superior Court (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 932Drafted from the opinion
Cal. Ct. App., 1st Dist., Div. 2 · 2022-02-07
An amended PAGA complaint substituting a second aggrieved employee who gave timely LWDA notice may relate back to the original, properly noticed complaint, so the penalty period runs from one year before the original plaintiff’s notice.
What it does not hold
- Esparza v. Safeway and Brown v. Ralphs distinguished: there the original complaint was never properly noticed.
General Electric Co. v. Joiner (1997) 522 U.S. 136Citation confirmed only
U.S. Supreme Court · 1997-12-15
No holding is stated here. The citation is confirmed; the decision has not been read against its opinion for this site.
LaCour v. Marshalls of CA, LLC (Cal. Ct. App., Dec. 24, 2025, A170191)Drafted from the opinion
Cal. Ct. App., 1st Dist., Div. 4 · 2025-12-24
Surveys the headless-action split under the pre-reform text and the grant-and-hold orders pending Leeper v. Shipt.
What it does not hold
- A prior opinion filed December 23, 2025 was vacated; the December 24, 2025 opinion is the operative one.
PosturePrior opinion of December 23, 2025 vacated.
Lawson v. ZB, N.A. (2017) 18 Cal.App.5th 705Drafted from the opinion
Cal. Ct. App., 4th Dist., Div. 1 · 2017-12-19
§ 558’s fixed amounts and its underpaid-wages amount were, together, the civil penalty the statute provides, indivisible and not subject to bifurcation for arbitration.
What it does not hold
- Affirmed in result only by ZB, N.A. (2019) 8 Cal.5th 175, which held the wages are compensatory damages not recoverable under PAGA.
PostureAffirmed in result, reasoning disapproved, ZB, N.A. v. Superior Court (2019) 8 Cal.5th 175.
McDoniel v. Kavry Management, LLC (Cal. Ct. App., Sept. 30, 2025, D084660)Drafted from the opinion
Cal. Ct. App., 4th Dist., Div. 1 · 2025-09-30
Part of the 2025 line on headless PAGA actions under the pre-reform text; held with the others pending Leeper v. Shipt.
What it does not hold
- Published; cited here for the posture of the split, not for a rule the tool applies.
Mejia v. Merchants Building Maintenance, LLC (2019) 38 Cal.App.5th 723Drafted from the opinion
Cal. Ct. App., 4th Dist., Div. 1 · 2019-08-13
Following Thurman, treated § 558’s underpaid-wages amount as part of a single civil penalty allocated under former § 2699(i).
What it does not hold
- Disapproved to the extent inconsistent with ZB, N.A. (2019) 8 Cal.5th 175, fn. 8: the wages are compensatory damages not recoverable under PAGA.
PostureDisapproved in part, ZB, N.A. v. Superior Court (2019) 8 Cal.5th 175, fn. 8.
Mendoza v. Nordstrom, Inc. (2017) 2 Cal.5th 1074Drafted from the opinion
Cal. Supreme Court · 2017-05-08
The day of rest under §§ 551 and 552 is guaranteed per fixed workweek; § 556’s exemption applies only when no shift in the week exceeds six hours; an employer “causes” seventh-day work by inducing it, not by permitting it.
What it does not hold
- Answers to certified questions in a PAGA action; § 558 and § 553 are named in dicta as the sanctions, and nothing is decided about PAGA amounts.
Osuna v. Spectrum Security Services, Inc. (Cal. Ct. App., May 27, 2025, B338047)Drafted from the opinion
Cal. Ct. App., 2d Dist., Div. 6 · 2025-05-27
Under the pre-reform text the one-year limitations period is not an element of standing: a plaintiff whose own violations fall outside the year may still pursue penalties for violations against other employees (Johnson v. Maxim followed).
What it does not hold
- Williams v. Alacrity (2025) holds the opposite; for notices on or after June 19, 2024 § 2699(c)(1) requires the plaintiff’s own violations within the period.
Price v. Starbucks Corp. (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 1136Drafted from the opinion
Cal. Ct. App., 2d Dist. · 2011-02-17
Under § 226(e) as it then read, a wage statement’s omission of a required item is not by itself an “injury”; the employee must show harm from the omission.
What it does not hold
- Superseded for statements issued after SB 1255 (2012) added the deemed-injury provision of § 226(e)(2); not a PAGA holding.
Savea v. YRC Inc. (2019) 34 Cal.App.5th 173Drafted from the opinion
Cal. Ct. App. · 2019-04-10
A recorded fictitious business name satisfies § 226(a)(8)’s employer-name requirement and a correct mailing address without a mail stop or ZIP+4 satisfies the address requirement.
What it does not hold
- Footnote 2 leaves strict-versus-substantial compliance undecided; injury and scienter are not reached.
Soto v. Motel 6 Operating, L.P. (2016) 4 Cal.App.5th 385Drafted from the opinion
Cal. Ct. App., 4th Dist., Div. 1 · 2016-10-20
§ 226(a) does not require a wage statement to show accrued vacation or paid-time-off balances, because they are not wages owed and due until separation.
What it does not hold
- Naranjo I confines Soto to compensation that vests but is not yet owed and due.
Villalobos v. Maersk, Inc. (Cal. Ct. App., Oct. 6, 2025, B333556)Drafted from the opinion
Cal. Ct. App., 2d Dist., Div. 8 · 2025-10-06
Where the Federal Arbitration Act does not govern the agreement, Iskanian still controls and a predispute waiver of the representative PAGA action is unenforceable.
What it does not hold
- Does not decide the headless question.
Ward v. United Airlines, Inc. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 732Drafted from the opinion
Cal. Supreme Court · 2020-06-29
§ 226 reaches employees whose principal place of work is California, or, for interstate transportation workers not localized in any state, whose base of work operations is California; residence, pay receipt and the employer’s location are not pertinent.
Statutes125
Operative text for most of these is vendored and diffed against leginfo at build.
Lab. Code § 2699Text vendored from leginfo
No characterization is stated here. The operative text is vendored from leginfo and diffed at every build — read it at the source link rather than taking a summary for it.
Relied on by 16 pages
Lab. Code § 226Text vendored from leginfo
No characterization is stated here. The operative text is vendored from leginfo and diffed at every build — read it at the source link rather than taking a summary for it.
Relied on by 5 pages
Lab. Code § 2699.3Text vendored from leginfo
No characterization is stated here. The operative text is vendored from leginfo and diffed at every build — read it at the source link rather than taking a summary for it.
Relied on by 5 pages
Lab. Code § 510Text vendored from leginfo
No characterization is stated here. The operative text is vendored from leginfo and diffed at every build — read it at the source link rather than taking a summary for it.
Relied on by 5 pages
Lab. Code § 2802Text vendored from leginfo
No characterization is stated here. The operative text is vendored from leginfo and diffed at every build — read it at the source link rather than taking a summary for it.
Relied on by 3 pages
Lab. Code § 515.5Text vendored from leginfo
No characterization is stated here. The operative text is vendored from leginfo and diffed at every build — read it at the source link rather than taking a summary for it.
Relied on by 3 pages
Lab. Code § 218.6Text vendored from leginfo
No characterization is stated here. The operative text is vendored from leginfo and diffed at every build — read it at the source link rather than taking a summary for it.
Relied on by 2 pages
Lab. Code § 226.2Text vendored from leginfo
No characterization is stated here. The operative text is vendored from leginfo and diffed at every build — read it at the source link rather than taking a summary for it.
Relied on by 2 pages
Lab. Code § 2751Text vendored from leginfo
No characterization is stated here. The operative text is vendored from leginfo and diffed at every build — read it at the source link rather than taking a summary for it.
Relied on by 2 pages
Civ. Code § 3289Text vendored from leginfo
No characterization is stated here. The operative text is vendored from leginfo and diffed at every build — read it at the source link rather than taking a summary for it.
Relied on by 2 pages
Lab. Code § 511Text vendored from leginfo
No characterization is stated here. The operative text is vendored from leginfo and diffed at every build — read it at the source link rather than taking a summary for it.
Relied on by 2 pages
Lab. Code § 1194Text vendored from leginfo
No characterization is stated here. The operative text is vendored from leginfo and diffed at every build — read it at the source link rather than taking a summary for it.
Relied on by 1 page
Lab. Code § 201Text vendored from leginfo
No characterization is stated here. The operative text is vendored from leginfo and diffed at every build — read it at the source link rather than taking a summary for it.
Relied on by 1 page
Lab. Code § 202Text vendored from leginfo
No characterization is stated here. The operative text is vendored from leginfo and diffed at every build — read it at the source link rather than taking a summary for it.
Relied on by 1 page
Lab. Code § 203Text vendored from leginfo
No characterization is stated here. The operative text is vendored from leginfo and diffed at every build — read it at the source link rather than taking a summary for it.
Relied on by 1 page
Lab. Code § 204Text vendored from leginfo
No characterization is stated here. The operative text is vendored from leginfo and diffed at every build — read it at the source link rather than taking a summary for it.
Relied on by 1 page
Lab. Code § 204.1Text vendored from leginfo
No characterization is stated here. The operative text is vendored from leginfo and diffed at every build — read it at the source link rather than taking a summary for it.
Relied on by 1 page
29 U.S.C. § 207Citation confirmed only
No characterization is stated here. The citation is confirmed and nothing further has been checked.
Relied on by 1 page
Lab. Code § 226.7Citation confirmed only
No characterization is stated here. The citation is confirmed and nothing further has been checked.
Relied on by 1 page
Lab. Code § 351Citation confirmed only
No characterization is stated here. The citation is confirmed and nothing further has been checked.
Relied on by 1 page
Lab. Code § 1102.5Text vendored from leginfo
No characterization is stated here. The operative text is vendored from leginfo and diffed at every build — read it at the source link rather than taking a summary for it.
Lab. Code § 1102.6Text vendored from leginfo
No characterization is stated here. The operative text is vendored from leginfo and diffed at every build — read it at the source link rather than taking a summary for it.
Lab. Code § 1171Text vendored from leginfo
No characterization is stated here. The operative text is vendored from leginfo and diffed at every build — read it at the source link rather than taking a summary for it.
Lab. Code § 1174Text vendored from leginfo
No characterization is stated here. The operative text is vendored from leginfo and diffed at every build — read it at the source link rather than taking a summary for it.
Lab. Code § 1174.5Text vendored from leginfo
No characterization is stated here. The operative text is vendored from leginfo and diffed at every build — read it at the source link rather than taking a summary for it.
Lab. Code § 1182.12Text vendored from leginfo
No characterization is stated here. The operative text is vendored from leginfo and diffed at every build — read it at the source link rather than taking a summary for it.
Lab. Code § 1183Text vendored from leginfo
No characterization is stated here. The operative text is vendored from leginfo and diffed at every build — read it at the source link rather than taking a summary for it.
Lab. Code § 1194.2Text vendored from leginfo
No characterization is stated here. The operative text is vendored from leginfo and diffed at every build — read it at the source link rather than taking a summary for it.
Lab. Code § 1197Text vendored from leginfo
No characterization is stated here. The operative text is vendored from leginfo and diffed at every build — read it at the source link rather than taking a summary for it.
Lab. Code § 1197.1Text vendored from leginfo
No characterization is stated here. The operative text is vendored from leginfo and diffed at every build — read it at the source link rather than taking a summary for it.
Lab. Code § 1198Text vendored from leginfo
No characterization is stated here. The operative text is vendored from leginfo and diffed at every build — read it at the source link rather than taking a summary for it.
Lab. Code § 1198.5Text vendored from leginfo
No characterization is stated here. The operative text is vendored from leginfo and diffed at every build — read it at the source link rather than taking a summary for it.
Lab. Code § 1199Text vendored from leginfo
No characterization is stated here. The operative text is vendored from leginfo and diffed at every build — read it at the source link rather than taking a summary for it.
Code Civ. Proc. § 1281.97Text vendored from leginfo
No characterization is stated here. The operative text is vendored from leginfo and diffed at every build — read it at the source link rather than taking a summary for it.
Code Civ. Proc. § 1281.98Text vendored from leginfo
No characterization is stated here. The operative text is vendored from leginfo and diffed at every build — read it at the source link rather than taking a summary for it.
Gov. Code § 12940Citation confirmed only
No characterization is stated here. The citation is confirmed and nothing further has been checked.
Lab. Code § 1682Text vendored from leginfo
No characterization is stated here. The operative text is vendored from leginfo and diffed at every build — read it at the source link rather than taking a summary for it.
Bus. & Prof. Code § 17208Text vendored from leginfo
No characterization is stated here. The operative text is vendored from leginfo and diffed at every build — read it at the source link rather than taking a summary for it.
Bus. & Prof. Code § 17550Citation confirmed only
No characterization is stated here. The citation is confirmed and nothing further has been checked.
Lab. Code § 18Text vendored from leginfo
No characterization is stated here. The operative text is vendored from leginfo and diffed at every build — read it at the source link rather than taking a summary for it.
Lab. Code § 200Text vendored from leginfo
No characterization is stated here. The operative text is vendored from leginfo and diffed at every build — read it at the source link rather than taking a summary for it.
Lab. Code § 201.3Text vendored from leginfo
No characterization is stated here. The operative text is vendored from leginfo and diffed at every build — read it at the source link rather than taking a summary for it.
Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.010Citation confirmed only
No characterization is stated here. The citation is confirmed and nothing further has been checked.
Lab. Code § 204.11Text vendored from leginfo
No characterization is stated here. The operative text is vendored from leginfo and diffed at every build — read it at the source link rather than taking a summary for it.
Lab. Code § 204.2Text vendored from leginfo
No characterization is stated here. The operative text is vendored from leginfo and diffed at every build — read it at the source link rather than taking a summary for it.
Lab. Code § 204bText vendored from leginfo
No characterization is stated here. The operative text is vendored from leginfo and diffed at every build — read it at the source link rather than taking a summary for it.
Lab. Code § 205Text vendored from leginfo
No characterization is stated here. The operative text is vendored from leginfo and diffed at every build — read it at the source link rather than taking a summary for it.
Lab. Code § 205.5Text vendored from leginfo
No characterization is stated here. The operative text is vendored from leginfo and diffed at every build — read it at the source link rather than taking a summary for it.
Lab. Code § 207Text vendored from leginfo
No characterization is stated here. The operative text is vendored from leginfo and diffed at every build — read it at the source link rather than taking a summary for it.
Lab. Code § 210Text vendored from leginfo
No characterization is stated here. The operative text is vendored from leginfo and diffed at every build — read it at the source link rather than taking a summary for it.
Lab. Code § 212Text vendored from leginfo
No characterization is stated here. The operative text is vendored from leginfo and diffed at every build — read it at the source link rather than taking a summary for it.
Lab. Code § 215Text vendored from leginfo
No characterization is stated here. The operative text is vendored from leginfo and diffed at every build — read it at the source link rather than taking a summary for it.
Lab. Code § 216Text vendored from leginfo
No characterization is stated here. The operative text is vendored from leginfo and diffed at every build — read it at the source link rather than taking a summary for it.
Lab. Code § 218.5Text vendored from leginfo
No characterization is stated here. The operative text is vendored from leginfo and diffed at every build — read it at the source link rather than taking a summary for it.
Lab. Code § 220Text vendored from leginfo
No characterization is stated here. The operative text is vendored from leginfo and diffed at every build — read it at the source link rather than taking a summary for it.
Lab. Code § 221Text vendored from leginfo
No characterization is stated here. The operative text is vendored from leginfo and diffed at every build — read it at the source link rather than taking a summary for it.
Lab. Code § 222Text vendored from leginfo
No characterization is stated here. The operative text is vendored from leginfo and diffed at every build — read it at the source link rather than taking a summary for it.
Lab. Code § 223Text vendored from leginfo
No characterization is stated here. The operative text is vendored from leginfo and diffed at every build — read it at the source link rather than taking a summary for it.
Lab. Code § 224Text vendored from leginfo
No characterization is stated here. The operative text is vendored from leginfo and diffed at every build — read it at the source link rather than taking a summary for it.
Lab. Code § 225Text vendored from leginfo
No characterization is stated here. The operative text is vendored from leginfo and diffed at every build — read it at the source link rather than taking a summary for it.
Lab. Code § 225.5Text vendored from leginfo
No characterization is stated here. The operative text is vendored from leginfo and diffed at every build — read it at the source link rather than taking a summary for it.
Lab. Code § 226.3Text vendored from leginfo
No characterization is stated here. The operative text is vendored from leginfo and diffed at every build — read it at the source link rather than taking a summary for it.
Lab. Code § 226.8Text vendored from leginfo
No characterization is stated here. The operative text is vendored from leginfo and diffed at every build — read it at the source link rather than taking a summary for it.
Lab. Code § 227.3Text vendored from leginfo
No characterization is stated here. The operative text is vendored from leginfo and diffed at every build — read it at the source link rather than taking a summary for it.
Lab. Code § 229Text vendored from leginfo
No characterization is stated here. The operative text is vendored from leginfo and diffed at every build — read it at the source link rather than taking a summary for it.
Lab. Code § 233Text vendored from leginfo
No characterization is stated here. The operative text is vendored from leginfo and diffed at every build — read it at the source link rather than taking a summary for it.
Lab. Code § 245Text vendored from leginfo
No characterization is stated here. The operative text is vendored from leginfo and diffed at every build — read it at the source link rather than taking a summary for it.
Lab. Code § 245.5Text vendored from leginfo
No characterization is stated here. The operative text is vendored from leginfo and diffed at every build — read it at the source link rather than taking a summary for it.
Lab. Code § 246Text vendored from leginfo
No characterization is stated here. The operative text is vendored from leginfo and diffed at every build — read it at the source link rather than taking a summary for it.
Lab. Code § 246.5Text vendored from leginfo
No characterization is stated here. The operative text is vendored from leginfo and diffed at every build — read it at the source link rather than taking a summary for it.
Lab. Code § 247Text vendored from leginfo
No characterization is stated here. The operative text is vendored from leginfo and diffed at every build — read it at the source link rather than taking a summary for it.
Lab. Code § 248.5Text vendored from leginfo
No characterization is stated here. The operative text is vendored from leginfo and diffed at every build — read it at the source link rather than taking a summary for it.
Lab. Code § 256Text vendored from leginfo
No characterization is stated here. The operative text is vendored from leginfo and diffed at every build — read it at the source link rather than taking a summary for it.
Lab. Code § 2698Text vendored from leginfo
No characterization is stated here. The operative text is vendored from leginfo and diffed at every build — read it at the source link rather than taking a summary for it.
Lab. Code § 2699.5Text vendored from leginfo
No characterization is stated here. The operative text is vendored from leginfo and diffed at every build — read it at the source link rather than taking a summary for it.
Lab. Code § 2699.6Text vendored from leginfo
No characterization is stated here. The operative text is vendored from leginfo and diffed at every build — read it at the source link rather than taking a summary for it.
Lab. Code § 2699.8Text vendored from leginfo
No characterization is stated here. The operative text is vendored from leginfo and diffed at every build — read it at the source link rather than taking a summary for it.
Lab. Code § 2775Text vendored from leginfo
No characterization is stated here. The operative text is vendored from leginfo and diffed at every build — read it at the source link rather than taking a summary for it.
Lab. Code § 2776Text vendored from leginfo
No characterization is stated here. The operative text is vendored from leginfo and diffed at every build — read it at the source link rather than taking a summary for it.
Lab. Code § 2804Text vendored from leginfo
No characterization is stated here. The operative text is vendored from leginfo and diffed at every build — read it at the source link rather than taking a summary for it.
Lab. Code § 2810Text vendored from leginfo
No characterization is stated here. The operative text is vendored from leginfo and diffed at every build — read it at the source link rather than taking a summary for it.
Lab. Code § 2810.3Text vendored from leginfo
No characterization is stated here. The operative text is vendored from leginfo and diffed at every build — read it at the source link rather than taking a summary for it.
Lab. Code § 2810.5Text vendored from leginfo
No characterization is stated here. The operative text is vendored from leginfo and diffed at every build — read it at the source link rather than taking a summary for it.
Lab. Code § 3300Text vendored from leginfo
No characterization is stated here. The operative text is vendored from leginfo and diffed at every build — read it at the source link rather than taking a summary for it.
Code Civ. Proc. § 338Text vendored from leginfo
No characterization is stated here. The operative text is vendored from leginfo and diffed at every build — read it at the source link rather than taking a summary for it.
Code Civ. Proc. § 340Text vendored from leginfo
No characterization is stated here. The operative text is vendored from leginfo and diffed at every build — read it at the source link rather than taking a summary for it.
Code Civ. Proc. § 382Text vendored from leginfo
No characterization is stated here. The operative text is vendored from leginfo and diffed at every build — read it at the source link rather than taking a summary for it.
Lab. Code § 432Text vendored from leginfo
No characterization is stated here. The operative text is vendored from leginfo and diffed at every build — read it at the source link rather than taking a summary for it.
Lab. Code § 512Text vendored from leginfo
No characterization is stated here. The operative text is vendored from leginfo and diffed at every build — read it at the source link rather than taking a summary for it.
Lab. Code § 512.1Text vendored from leginfo
No characterization is stated here. The operative text is vendored from leginfo and diffed at every build — read it at the source link rather than taking a summary for it.
Lab. Code § 515Text vendored from leginfo
No characterization is stated here. The operative text is vendored from leginfo and diffed at every build — read it at the source link rather than taking a summary for it.
Lab. Code § 551Text vendored from leginfo
No characterization is stated here. The operative text is vendored from leginfo and diffed at every build — read it at the source link rather than taking a summary for it.
Lab. Code § 552Text vendored from leginfo
No characterization is stated here. The operative text is vendored from leginfo and diffed at every build — read it at the source link rather than taking a summary for it.
Lab. Code § 553Text vendored from leginfo
No characterization is stated here. The operative text is vendored from leginfo and diffed at every build — read it at the source link rather than taking a summary for it.
Lab. Code § 556Text vendored from leginfo
No characterization is stated here. The operative text is vendored from leginfo and diffed at every build — read it at the source link rather than taking a summary for it.
Lab. Code § 558Text vendored from leginfo
No characterization is stated here. The operative text is vendored from leginfo and diffed at every build — read it at the source link rather than taking a summary for it.
Lab. Code § 558.1Text vendored from leginfo
No characterization is stated here. The operative text is vendored from leginfo and diffed at every build — read it at the source link rather than taking a summary for it.
Lab. Code § 6310Text vendored from leginfo
No characterization is stated here. The operative text is vendored from leginfo and diffed at every build — read it at the source link rather than taking a summary for it.
Lab. Code § 98Text vendored from leginfo
No characterization is stated here. The operative text is vendored from leginfo and diffed at every build — read it at the source link rather than taking a summary for it.
Lab. Code § 98.2Text vendored from leginfo
No characterization is stated here. The operative text is vendored from leginfo and diffed at every build — read it at the source link rather than taking a summary for it.
Lab. Code § 98.3Text vendored from leginfo
No characterization is stated here. The operative text is vendored from leginfo and diffed at every build — read it at the source link rather than taking a summary for it.
Lab. Code § 98.4Text vendored from leginfo
No characterization is stated here. The operative text is vendored from leginfo and diffed at every build — read it at the source link rather than taking a summary for it.
Lab. Code § 98.6Text vendored from leginfo
No characterization is stated here. The operative text is vendored from leginfo and diffed at every build — read it at the source link rather than taking a summary for it.
Lab. Code § 98.7Text vendored from leginfo
No characterization is stated here. The operative text is vendored from leginfo and diffed at every build — read it at the source link rather than taking a summary for it.
Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200Text vendored from leginfo
No characterization is stated here. The operative text is vendored from leginfo and diffed at every build — read it at the source link rather than taking a summary for it.
Code Civ. Proc. § 1048Text vendored from leginfo
No characterization is stated here. The operative text is vendored from leginfo and diffed at every build — read it at the source link rather than taking a summary for it.
Code Civ. Proc. § 1281.4Text vendored from leginfo
No characterization is stated here. The operative text is vendored from leginfo and diffed at every build — read it at the source link rather than taking a summary for it.
Code Civ. Proc. § 1281.99Text vendored from leginfo
No characterization is stated here. The operative text is vendored from leginfo and diffed at every build — read it at the source link rather than taking a summary for it.
Code Civ. Proc. § 1285Text vendored from leginfo
No characterization is stated here. The operative text is vendored from leginfo and diffed at every build — read it at the source link rather than taking a summary for it.
Code Civ. Proc. § 1287.4Text vendored from leginfo
No characterization is stated here. The operative text is vendored from leginfo and diffed at every build — read it at the source link rather than taking a summary for it.
Code Civ. Proc. § 387Text vendored from leginfo
No characterization is stated here. The operative text is vendored from leginfo and diffed at every build — read it at the source link rather than taking a summary for it.
Code Civ. Proc. § 404.1Text vendored from leginfo
No characterization is stated here. The operative text is vendored from leginfo and diffed at every build — read it at the source link rather than taking a summary for it.
Code Civ. Proc. § 404.6Text vendored from leginfo
No characterization is stated here. The operative text is vendored from leginfo and diffed at every build — read it at the source link rather than taking a summary for it.
Code Civ. Proc. § 436Text vendored from leginfo
No characterization is stated here. The operative text is vendored from leginfo and diffed at every build — read it at the source link rather than taking a summary for it.
Code Civ. Proc. § 473Citation confirmed only
No characterization is stated here. The citation is confirmed and nothing further has been checked.
Code Civ. Proc. § 663Text vendored from leginfo
No characterization is stated here. The operative text is vendored from leginfo and diffed at every build — read it at the source link rather than taking a summary for it.
Civ. Code § 1511Text vendored from leginfo
No characterization is stated here. The operative text is vendored from leginfo and diffed at every build — read it at the source link rather than taking a summary for it.
Civ. Code § 3275Text vendored from leginfo
No characterization is stated here. The operative text is vendored from leginfo and diffed at every build — read it at the source link rather than taking a summary for it.
Civ. Code § 3294Text vendored from leginfo
No characterization is stated here. The operative text is vendored from leginfo and diffed at every build — read it at the source link rather than taking a summary for it.
Evid. Code § 1152Text vendored from leginfo
No characterization is stated here. The operative text is vendored from leginfo and diffed at every build — read it at the source link rather than taking a summary for it.
Evid. Code § 801Text vendored from leginfo
No characterization is stated here. The operative text is vendored from leginfo and diffed at every build — read it at the source link rather than taking a summary for it.
Evid. Code § 802Text vendored from leginfo
No characterization is stated here. The operative text is vendored from leginfo and diffed at every build — read it at the source link rather than taking a summary for it.
Gov. Code § 53051Text vendored from leginfo
No characterization is stated here. The operative text is vendored from leginfo and diffed at every build — read it at the source link rather than taking a summary for it.
Gov. Code § 818Text vendored from leginfo
No characterization is stated here. The operative text is vendored from leginfo and diffed at every build — read it at the source link rather than taking a summary for it.
Health & Saf. Code § 101850Text vendored from leginfo
No characterization is stated here. The operative text is vendored from leginfo and diffed at every build — read it at the source link rather than taking a summary for it.