Source: https://ads1.morelaw.com/verdicts/case.asp?n=H044764&s=CA&d=120642
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 10:50:28+00:00

Document:
1 All statutory references are to the Labor Code unless otherwise specified.
unpaid rest/NP time when the employer complies with a number of specified conditions.
different forms and therefore has various meanings. (See, e.g., Optimal Markets, Inc. v.
accruing prior to and including December 31, 2015.
damages, and statutory penalties—is at issue here.
motion, but he admitted that Jackpot had complied fully with section 226.2(b).
cause of action of the complaint.
Evid. Code, §§ 452, 459; Moehring v. Thomas (2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 1515, 1523 & fn.
4 [judicial notice taken of United States Census Bureau’s website containing 2000 U.S.
employees under the safe harbor provision of section 226.2(b).
per month with an average duration of 30 minutes, and (4) take 15-minute rest breaks.
itself of certain provisions of section 226.2, subdivisions (b) and (d).
complied fully with the safe harbor provisions of section 226.2(b).
and/or 14” in support of the first cause of action.
the first cause of action.
against unpaid minimum wage claims accruing prior to July 1, 2012.
opposition to the petition, and Jackpot filed a formal reply.
for claims accruing between July 1, 2012 and December 31, 2015.
Our interpretation of section 226.2 “is an issue of law, which we review de novo.
Legislature meant what it said, and the plain meaning of the language governs.
appellate court scrutinizes the denial of summary adjudication by independent review.
provide background concerning the enactment of AB 1513 is nonetheless appropriate.
considered to provide additional authority to confirm the court’s statutory interpretation.
not pay employees for “ ‘nonproductive’ ” time such as travel to and from job sites.
comply with California minimum wage law. [Citations.]” (Bluford, supra, at p. 872; cf.
specified exceptions.” (Ibid; see also Fowler Packing Company, Inc. v. Lanier (9th Cir.
of the employers who have provided the required notice or copies of the actual notices.
piece-rate compensation, for rest and recovery periods and other nonproductive time.
by spreadsheet or similar document, a detailed calculation of the payment.
the statute, including the safe harbor subdivision, of January 1, 2021. (§ 226.2, subd.
susceptible of the construction advanced by Lainez.
Inc. (2018) 5 Cal.5th 627, 635.) It “means without limit and no matter what kind.
[Citation.]” (Delaney v. Superior Court (1990) 50 Cal.3d 785, 798; see also Zabrucky v.
Because the plain import of “any” is the absence of restriction or limitation (U.S. ex rel.
statutory rewrite.) Such judicial statutory revision is prohibited. (Guzman, supra, at p.
showing that the Legislature had an intent contrary to the express language of the statute.
March and May 2013, respectively.
effectuates the purpose of the statute.
Cuadra v. Millan (1998) 17 Cal.4th 855, 859, disapproved on other grounds in Samuels v.
January 1, 2013, might be barred by the applicable statute of limitations.
2012 and December 31, 2015).
“constitutional issues not raised in earlier civil proceedings are waived on appeal.
case by their silence”].) Lainez has forfeited the constitutional argument.
regulatory actions that are functionally equivalent to the classic taking.’ [Citation.] . . .
created a vested right in favor of the employee to such compensation.
Jackpot responds that the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment is not implicated.
Act (29 U.S.C. § 251 et seq.).
[citation], and the time spent walking from timeclocks to work benches, [citation].
Fifth Amendment. The constitutional claims were uniformly rejected. (See Moss v.
[were] also in some sense ‘contractual’ in nature and hence vested.” (Id. at p. 258, fn.
employees’ pre-July 2012 rest/NP time claims.
express urgency findings in the legislation that we consider here.
the statutory language must be presented to the Legislature.
vacate its order of May 17, 2017, and enter a new order granting the motion of petitioner Jackpot Harvesting Company, Inc. (Jackpot) for summary adjudication of the first cause of action of the complaint. Upon finality of this opinion, the temporary stay issued by this court is vacated. Statutory costs are awarded to Jackpot.

References: v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v.

 § 251
 v.