Title: Alvarado v. Dart Container Corp. of California
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: S232607M
State: California
Issuer: California Supreme Court
Date: April 25, 2018

Filed 4/25/18 
 
 
 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA 
 
 
 
HECTOR ALVARADO, 
) 
 
 
) 
 
Plaintiff and Appellant, 
) 
 
 
) 
S232607 
 
v. 
) 
 
 
) 
Ct.App. 4/2 E061645 
DART CONTAINER CORPORATION 
) 
OF CALIFORNIA, 
)  
Riverside County 
 
)  
Super. Ct. No. RIC1211707 
 
Defendant and Respondent. 
) 
 
____________________________________) 
 
ORDER MODIFYING OPINION 
THE COURT: 
The opinion in this matter filed on March 5, 2018, and appearing in the 
California Official Reports at 4 Cal.5th 542, is modified as follows: 
1.  On page 551 of the published opinion, a footnote is inserted at the end of 
the sentence that reads:  “Plaintiff’s formula turns out to be marginally more 
favorable to employees; the key distinction between the two formulas is whether 
the bonus is allocated to all hours worked, or only to the nonovertime hours 
worked.”  The new footnote, which is numbered as footnote 2, reads:  
“Defendant’s formula and plaintiff’s formula have one thing in common:  both use 
the pay period as the basis for calculating an employee’s regular rate of pay.  In 
other words, neither party suggests that regular rate of pay should be calculated on 
a workweek basis, which might result in an employee having two or more regular 
 
2 
rates of pay in a single pay period.  This opinion follows the lead of the parties in 
using the pay period as the basis for calculating regular rate of pay, but we did not 
grant review to decide whether, under California law, regular rate of pay is 
properly calculated on a pay-period basis or a workweek basis, and nothing in this 
opinion should be interpreted as deciding that question.” 
2.  On pages 551, 553, 555, 561, 564–565, 567, 570, and 572 of the 
published opinion, current footnotes 2 through 12 are renumbered as footnotes 3 
through 13. 
This modification does not affect the judgment. 
The request for clarification and/or modification of the opinion, filed by 
amicus curiae California Employment Law Council on March 22, 2018, is denied.