exemption defense in California

2014(Sav-On, supra, 34 Cal.4th at p. 335 ; Washington Mutual, supra, 24 Cal.4th at p. 927 .) In the context of overtime class actions, some courts have decertified when individual issues related to an exemption defense threaten to overwhelm the litigation.

2014(Sav-On, supra, 34 Cal.4th at p. 335 ; Washington Mutual, supra, 24 Cal.4th at p. 927 .) In the context of overtime class actions, some courts have decertified when individual issues related to an exemption defense threaten to overwhelm the litigation.

2026(Costello[, supra,] 81 Cal.App.2d at p. 453 ; Finley-Gordon Carpet Co.[, supra,] 247 Cal.App.2d at p. 132 .) [¶] The contract between Super Secur and defendant did not require Super Secur to undertake the installation of concrete foundation, rough plumbing, or installation of plumbing fixtures, stalls, wood roofing, and painting upon 16 which to place the prefabricated restroom.

1979Finley-Gordon Carpet Co. v. Bay Shore Homes, Inc. (1966) 247 Cal.App.2d 131 [ 55 Cal.Rptr. 378 ], construed the relevant parts of section 7045 as it presently reads.

2026(Dozier, supra, 116 Cal.App.5th at p. 713; Mathis, supra, 111 Cal.App.5th at pp. 373- 374; People v. Brannon-Thompson (2024) 104 Cal.App.5th 455 , 458 (Brannon- Thompson).) As such, the factfinding requirements in § 1172.75(d)(4) “apply only if the trial court is imposing the upper term for the first time at a section 1172.75 resentencing.” (Brannon-Thompson, supra, at pp. 466-467.) A fundamental task in interpreting statutes “ ‘ “ ‘is to determine the Legislature’s intent so as to effectuate the law’s purpose.’ ” ’ ” (People v. Gonzalez (2017) 2 Cal.5th 1138, 1141 .) If the words in the statu

2026(Dozier, supra, 116 Cal.App.5th at p. 713; Mathis, supra, 111 Cal.App.5th at pp. 373- 374; People v. Brannon-Thompson (2024) 104 Cal.App.5th 455 , 458 (Brannon- Thompson).) As such, the factfinding requirements in § 1172.75(d)(4) “apply only if the trial court is imposing the upper term for the first time at a section 1172.75 resentencing.” (Brannon-Thompson, supra, at pp. 466-467.) A fundamental task in interpreting statutes “ ‘ “ ‘is to determine the Legislature’s intent so as to effectuate the law’s purpose.’ ” ’ ” (People v. Gonzalez (2017) 2 Cal.5th 1138, 1141 .) If the words in the statu

2026(Dozier, supra, 116 Cal.App.5th at p. 713; Mathis, supra, 111 Cal.App.5th at pp. 373- 374; People v. Brannon-Thompson (2024) 104 Cal.App.5th 455 , 458 (Brannon- Thompson).) As such, the factfinding requirements in § 1172.75(d)(4) “apply only if the trial court is imposing the upper term for the first time at a section 1172.75 resentencing.” (Brannon-Thompson, supra, at pp. 466-467.) A fundamental task in interpreting statutes “ ‘ “ ‘is to determine the Legislature’s intent so as to effectuate the law’s purpose.’ ” ’ ” (People v. Gonzalez (2017) 2 Cal.5th 1138, 1141 .) If the words in the statu

2026(Dozier, supra, 116 Cal.App.5th at p. 713; Mathis, supra, 111 Cal.App.5th at pp. 373- 374; People v. Brannon-Thompson (2024) 104 Cal.App.5th 455 , 458 (Brannon- Thompson).) As such, the factfinding requirements in § 1172.75(d)(4) “apply only if the trial court is imposing the upper term for the first time at a section 1172.75 resentencing.” (Brannon-Thompson, supra, at pp. 466-467.) A fundamental task in interpreting statutes “ ‘ “ ‘is to determine the Legislature’s intent so as to effectuate the law’s purpose.’ ” ’ ” (People v. Gonzalez (2017) 2 Cal.5th 1138, 1141 .) If the words in the statu

2022(See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.406(a)(1) [“[A] notice of appeal must be filed within 60 days after the rendition of the judgment or the making of the order being appealed.”].)11 “ ‘A judgment in a proceeding under Section 300 may be appealed in the same manner as any final judgment, and any subsequent order may be appealed as an order after judgment.’ [Citations.] As a result of these broad statutory terms, ‘[j]uvenile dependency law does not abide by the normal prohibition against interlocutory appeals . . . .’ [Citations.]” (In re S.B. (2009) 46 Cal.4th 529 , 531–532 (S.B.).) Notwithstandi

2022(See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.406(a)(1) [“[A] notice of appeal must be filed within 60 days after the rendition of the judgment or the making of the order being appealed.”].)11 “ ‘A judgment in a proceeding under Section 300 may be appealed in the same manner as any final judgment, and any subsequent order may be appealed as an order after judgment.’ [Citations.] As a result of these broad statutory terms, ‘[j]uvenile dependency law does not abide by the normal prohibition against interlocutory appeals . . . .’ [Citations.]” (In re S.B. (2009) 46 Cal.4th 529 , 531–532 (S.B.).) Notwithstandi

2021XIII, § 1) and to have no bearing upon an excise or privilege tax . . . or license fees assessed for the right to carry on certain businesses.” (Estate of Simpson, supra, 43 Cal.2d at p. 597 .) In addition, “[l]ocal assessments do not come within the meaning of the word ‘tax’ as used in the constitutional provision exempting lands of the state from taxation.” (Ibid.) Rather, “[t]he constitutional exemptions from taxation refer only to property taxes” such as “property used for religious, hospital and charitable purposes” and “church property.” (Id. at pp. 597-598.)6 6 The respondent in Estate

2021XIII, § 1) and to have no bearing upon an excise or privilege tax . . . or license fees assessed for the right to carry on certain businesses.” (Estate of Simpson, supra, 43 Cal.2d at p. 597 .) In addition, “[l]ocal assessments do not come within the meaning of the word ‘tax’ as used in the constitutional provision exempting lands of the state from taxation.” (Ibid.) Rather, “[t]he constitutional exemptions from taxation refer only to property taxes” such as “property used for religious, hospital and charitable purposes” and “church property.” (Id. at pp. 597-598.) 6 6 The respondent in Estate

2018(See Best Products, Inc. v. Superior Court (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 1181 , 1188-1189, 15 Cal.Rptr.3d 154 [defining privilege log].) For the sake of clarity, we use the term "index" to describe the catalog of documents, identities, and privileges ordered by the trial court.

2018(See Best Products, Inc. v. Superior Court (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 1181 , 1188-1189, 15 Cal.Rptr.3d 154 [defining privilege log].) For the sake of clarity, we use the term "index" to describe the catalog of documents, identities, and privileges ordered by the trial court.

2008The Supreme Court relied on Evidence Code section 502 when concluding that the trial court was required to instruct on the defendant's burden of proof on the exemption defense and cited People v. Figueroa (1986) 41 Cal.3d 714 , 722 . ( Simon, supra , 9 Cal.4th at p. 501 .) Figueroa used the same analysis as Mower to arrive at the same conclusion.

1995Code, § 502, italics added.) (5) The requirement that the court instruct on the nature of the burden of proof applies to an exemption defense in a corporate securities prosecution. ( People v. Figueroa, supra, 41 Cal.3d 714, 722 .) (4b) The court instructed the jury that section 25110 makes it unlawful to offer or sell an unqualified security unless the security is exempt.

1950(Y.W.C.A. v. City of New York (1926), 217 App.Div. 406 [ 216 N.Y.S. 248, 252-253 ].) The restaurant as here conducted is in nowise integrated into any educational or training program on the part of plaintiff in the sense that its members prepared the meals incident to the learning of the art of cooking as a gainful occupation, such as was a material consideration in the case of Young Women's Christian Ass'n v. Baumann, supra, 344 Mo. 898 [ 130 S.W.2d 499, 502 ], for the exemption of the cafeteria there involved.

1950(Y.W.C.A. v. City of New York (1926), 217 App.Div. 406 [ 216 N.Y.S. 248, 252-253 ].) The restaurant as here conducted is in nowise integrated into any educational or training program on the part of plaintiff in the sense that its members prepared the meals incident to the learning of the art of cooking as a gainful occupation, such as was a material consideration in the case of Young Women's Christian Ass'n v. Baumann, supra, 344 Mo. 898 [ 130 S.W.2d 499, 502 ], for the exemption of the cafeteria there involved.

1950(Y.W.C.A. v. City of New York (1926), 217 App.Div. 406 [ 216 N.Y.S. 248, 252-253 ].) The restaurant as here conducted is in nowise integrated into any educational or training program on the part of plaintiff in the sense that its members prepared the meals incident to the learning of the art of cooking as a gainful occupation, such as was a material consideration in the case of Young Women's Christian Ass'n v. Baumann, supra, 344 Mo. 898 [ 130 S.W.2d 499, 502 ], for the exemption of the cafeteria there involved.

1950(Y.W.C.A. v. City of New York (1926), 217 App.Div. 406 [ 216 N.Y.S. 248, 252-253 ].) The restaurant as here conducted is in nowise integrated into any educational or training program on the part of plaintiff in the sense that its members prepared the meals incident to the learning of the art of cooking as a gainful occupation, such as was a material consideration in the case of Young Women's Christian Ass'n v. Baumann, supra, 344 Mo. 898 [ 130 S.W.2d 499, 502 ], for the exemption of the cafeteria there involved.

1947Thus in the Estate of Parrott, 199 Cal. 107 [ 248 P. 248 ], the creditor filed his claim for the total amount due on the promissory note of decedent and her brother; but because the decedent's brother as a joint obligor thereafter paid one half of the debt, the inheritance tax appraiser in making his report deducted from the taxable estate only the balance remaining unpaid after the brother's contribution.

1947Thus in the Estate of Parrott, 199 Cal. 107 [ 248 P. 248 ], the creditor filed his claim for the total amount due on the promissory note of decedent and her brother; but because the decedent's brother as a joint obligor thereafter paid one half of the debt, the inheritance tax appraiser in making his report deducted from the taxable estate only the balance remaining unpaid after the brother's contribution.

2026(Id. at p. 483.) The survey, however, was found unreliable due to “methodological and design problems.” (Id. at p. 486.) “In light of the individualized nature of some aspects of the exemption test,” the court’s manageability concerns “ripened into doubt regarding the continuing efficacy of a class action.” (Id. at p. 480.) Facing decertification, the Marlo plaintiffs argued their only burden was to show UPS classified them as exempt employees and did not pay overtime—“a prima facie case to which UPS was willing to stipulate.” (Marlo, supra, 251 F.R.D. at p. 482 .) At that point, according to

2026It argued plaintiffs’ decision to litigate the matter as a class action resulted in a self-imposed “burden of ultimately proving misclassification on a class-wide basis.” (Ibid.) The court had to decide “whether there is any difference between an individual case, where it is well-established that an employer has the burden of proving that the overtime exemption was appropriate, and a class action challenging an employer’s decision to classify as exempt a group of employees.” (Ibid.) The Marlo court stated its understanding of California law based on the Sav-On decision: “[I]n order to maintain

2026(See MW Erectors, supra, 36 Cal.4th at p. 425 [noting that the CSLL was initially adopted in 1939, citing Stats. 1939, ch. 37, § 1, p. 381].) 15 patented prefabricated kitchen unit consisting of seven wall cabinets, six base cabinets, a dishwasher, and a sink attached to the floor and walls was held to come within the exemption to the requirement that the manufacturer be a licensed contractor, despite the necessity for minor plumbing, electrical, and linoleum work incidental to the installation of the finished unit.” (Walker, at p. 847.) And, in Finley-Gordon Carpet Co., the Court of Appeal up

2026(Costello[, supra,] 81 Cal.App.2d at p. 453 ; Finley-Gordon Carpet Co.[, supra,] 247 Cal.App.2d at p. 132 .) [¶] The contract between Super Secur and defendant did not require Super Secur to undertake the installation of concrete foundation, rough plumbing, or installation of plumbing fixtures, stalls, wood roofing, and painting upon 16 which to place the prefabricated restroom.

2026(See MW Erectors, supra, 36 Cal.4th at p. 425 [noting that the CSLL was initially adopted in 1939, citing Stats. 1939, ch. 37, § 1, p. 381].) 15 patented prefabricated kitchen unit consisting of seven wall cabinets, six base cabinets, a dishwasher, and a sink attached to the floor and walls was held to come within the exemption to the requirement that the manufacturer be a licensed contractor, despite the necessity for minor plumbing, electrical, and linoleum work incidental to the installation of the finished unit.” (Walker, at p. 847.) And, in Finley-Gordon Carpet Co., the Court of Appeal up

2026(Soderstedt, at pp. 138–139, 148–149.) Appellate courts have also affirmed decertification orders issued at various stages when “individual issues related to an exemption defense threaten[ed] to overwhelm the litigation.” (Duran, supra, 59 Cal.4th at p. 30 .) “For example, in Walsh v. IKON Office Solutions, Inc., supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at pages 1445–1448, the court certified an overtime class action involving the outside salesperson exemption.

2026“California statutes and regulations contain no corresponding 88. provisions.” (Rhea v. General Atomics (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 1560, 1567 .) Pursuant to the “general approach” of relying on the FLSA and federal regulations in the absence of conflicting or controlling state law, California courts have applied parts 541.602 and 541.603 to determine whether employees are paid a salary for purposes of Labor Code section 515 and the IWC wage orders.

2025(Mercury, supra, 158 Cal.App.4th at pp. 100–101 & fn. 31 [concluding, based on Advisory Committee comment, the exemption under rule 2.550(a)(3) extends to discovery materials attached to complaints, and the exemption is consistent with NBC Subsidiary]; In re Marriage of Burkle (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 1045, 1048 , 1055–1056 (Burkle) [applying tradition/utility test to invalidate statute requiring sealing of certain records in divorce proceedings at party’s request]; San Bernardino County Dept. of Public Social Services v. Superior Court (1991) 232 Cal.App.3d 188, 203, 205 (San Bernardino County)

2025(Mercury, supra, 158 Cal.App.4th at pp. 100–101 & fn. 31 [concluding, based on Advisory Committee comment, the exemption under rule 2.550(a)(3) extends to discovery materials attached to complaints, and the exemption is consistent with NBC Subsidiary]; In re Marriage of Burkle (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 1045, 1048 , 1055–1056 (Burkle) [applying tradition/utility test to invalidate statute requiring sealing of certain records in divorce proceedings at party’s request]; San Bernardino County Dept. of Public Social Services v. Superior Court (1991) 232 Cal.App.3d 188, 203, 205 (San Bernardino County)

2025That Walters cited to Parker Shattuck Neighbors v. Berkeley City Council (2013) 222 Cal.App.4th 768 , a mitigated negative declaration case, in analyzing whether a project would have a significant effect on traffic impacts, does not equate to a finding that CEQA analyses required after a finding that a project is not exempt must be done before finding that a project is not exempt.