(a)No person, or agent or officer thereof, shall issue in payment of wages due, or to become due, or as an advance on wages to be earned:
(1)Any order, check, draft, note, memorandum, or other acknowledgment of indebtedness, unless it is negotiable and payable in cash, on demand, without discount, at some established place of business in the state, the name and address of which must appear on the instrument, and at the time of its issuance and for a reasonable time thereafter, which must be at least 30 days, the maker or drawer has sufficient funds in, or credit, arrangement, or understanding with the drawee for its payment.
(2)Any scrip, coupon, cards, or other thing redeemable, in merchandise or purporting to be payable or redeemable otherwise than in money.
(b)Where an instrument mentioned in subdivision (a) is protested or dishonored, the notice or memorandum of protest or dishonor is admissible as proof of presentation, nonpayment and protest and is presumptive evidence of knowledge of insufficiency of funds or credit with the drawee.
(c)Notwithstanding paragraph (1) of subdivision (a), if the drawee is a bank, the bank’s address need not appear on the instrument and, in that case, the instrument shall be negotiable and payable in cash, on demand, without discount, at any place of business of the drawee chosen by the person entitled to enforce the instrument.
Notes of Decisions
Adoma v. Univ. of Phoenix, Inc., 913 F. Supp. 2d 964 (E.D. Cal. 2012).
“Code § 226(a)) (Complaint ¶ 146), and issuance of paychecks payable within California (Cal. Lab.Code § 212) (Complaint ¶ 159). These amounts, when summed, appear to be the source of the $400,000 sought under PAGA.”
Gonzalez v. Millard Mall Servs., Inc., 281 F.R.D. 455 (S.D. Cal. 2012).
· cites it 2× “Cal. Labor Code § 212 (a). Defendants concede that their paychecks did not contain the name and address of a California bank that could cash the paycheck without a fee or delay prior to June 1, 2009.”
Kenneth Holley-Gallegly v. Ta Operating, LLC, 74 F.4th 997 (9th Cir. 2023).
“Labor Code §§ 201–202; (8) violations of Cal. Labor Code § 212 ; (9) failure to fully reimburse work expenses; (10) penalties pursuant to Cal.”
Leon v. Gordon Trucking, Inc., 76 F. Supp. 3d 1055 (C.D. Cal. 2014).
“7; (4) failure to reimburse business expenses and purchases in violation of California Labor Code §§ 450, 2800, and 2802; (5) failure to timely pay wages in violation of California Labor Code §§ 201 and 202; (6) failure to provide accurate wage statements in violation of…”
Brown v. Superior Court, 199 Cal. App. 4th 971 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 2× “Labor Code section 212 provides: “(a) No person, or agent or officer thereof, shall issue in payment of wages due, or to become due, or as an advance on wages to be earned: “(1) Any order, check, draft, note, memorandum, or other acknowledgment of indebtedness, unless it is…”
Marenco v. DirecTV LLC, 24 Wage & Hour Cas.2d (BNA) 462 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015).
“(Lab. Code, § 212; Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200; UCL.”
Bellinghausen v. Tractor Supply Co., 303 F.R.D. 611 (N.D. Cal. 2014).
“In this case, the common questions of law and fact center around Defendant’s employment practices and policies; for example, whether Defendant maintained legally compliant meal and rest period policies; whether Defendant paid class members with instruments that were subject to…”
Solis v. Regis Corp., 612 F. Supp. 2d 1085 (N.D. Cal. 2007).
· cites it 3× “Plaintiff moves for summary judgment of liability on her claim that defendants violated California Labor Code section 212 by paying its subsidiaries’ employees with out-of-state checks.”
Wang v. Div. of Labor Standards Enf't, 219 Cal. App. 3d 1152 (Cal. Ct. App. 1990).
“4 For example, Labor Code section 212 penalizes an employer who pays wages with a check drawn upon insufficient funds.”
Gunawan v. Howroyd-Wright Emp. Agency, 997 F. Supp. 2d 1058 (C.D. Cal. 2014).
“payable only in goods, or orders of an indefinite nature not payable on demand, but at some future time or paychecks which cannot be honored because of the drawee’s insufficient funds.”
Yoder v. W. Express, Inc., 181 F. Supp. 3d 704 (C.D. Cal. 2015).
“Labor code sections 212 ("Form of Payment”), 201-203 (payment of wages to an employee upon discharge or termination); 226 ("Itemized Statements”); 450 ("employer shall not coerce employee to purchase anything of value,” i.”
— Cal. Labor Code § 212(a) — 4 cases
Gonzalez v. Millard Mall Servs., Inc., 281 F.R.D. 455 (S.D. Cal. 2012).
“Cal. Labor Code § 212 (a). Defendants concede that their paychecks did not contain the name and address of a California bank that could cash the paycheck without a fee or delay prior to June 1, 2009.”
— Cal. Labor Code § 212(a)(1) — 2 cases
Leon v. Gordon Trucking, Inc., 76 F. Supp. 3d 1055 (C.D. Cal. 2014).
“7; (4) failure to reimburse business expenses and purchases in violation of California Labor Code §§ 450, 2800, and 2802; (5) failure to timely pay wages in violation of California Labor Code §§ 201 and 202; (6) failure to provide accurate wage statements in violation of…”
Solis v. Regis Corp., 612 F. Supp. 2d 1085 (N.D. Cal. 2007).
“Plaintiff moves for summary judgment of liability on her claim that defendants violated California Labor Code section 212 by paying its subsidiaries’ employees with out-of-state checks.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.