Search results
• The California Supreme Court heard oral arguments on November 8, 2023. • Question on Review: Do trial courts have inherent authority to ensure that claims under the Private Attorneys General Act “PAGA” (Lab. Code, § 2698 et
Petitioners, a federal employees' union and one of its officials, filed suit on behalf of Service employees seeking covered positions, alleging that the drug-testing program violated, inter alia, the Fourth Amendment. The District Court agreed and enjoined the program.
9 sty 2024 · The California Supreme Court will now remedy the split between districts and, if it reverses Estrada, employers will have a powerful new tool in PAGA actions. Quach v. California Commerce Club,...
summary judgment in employment cases will continue to influence trial courts and litigants. Ultimately, the California Supreme Court may be called on yet again to clarify that summary judgment is not a disfavored remedy in any type of case.
24 sty 2024 · On January 18, 2024, the California Supreme Court issued its opinion in Estrada v. Royalty Carpet Mills, Inc. , concluding that trial courts do not have inherent authority to strike a PAGA claim on the grounds that it is unmanageable.
In summary, Justice Blackmun's dissent in Faretta v. California critically examines the majority's reliance on the Sixth Amendment, historical evidence, and the implications of granting a constitutional right to self-representation.
On November 8, 2023, the California Supreme Court heard oral argument in Estrada v. Royalty Carpet Mills, Inc., a case that could have profound implications for the future of Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) litigation. The Court granted review in order to decide whether courts have the power to strike or limit PAGA claims that would prove ...
