Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
9 California opinions name it 2 courts 2006–2025 5 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
O'Donnell v. Vencor, Inc.green2 sentences2024(See O’Donnell v. Vencor Inc. (9th Cir. 2006) 466 F.3d 1104, 1111 [second complaint did not relate back to first complaint that had been dismissed without prejudice because second complaint was a separate action not an amendment to first complaint]; Eng v. County of Los Angeles (C.D.Cal. 2010) 737 F.Supp.2d 1078, 1099 [relation back doctrine “does not apply with equal force to actions that are, in actuality, entirely new or separate proceedings”].) Plaintiffs’ reliance on Branick v. Downey Savings & Loan Assn. (2006) 39 Cal.4th 235 (Branick) is misplaced. 2024(See O’Donnell v. Vencor Inc. (9th Cir. 2006) 466 F.3d 1104, 1111 [second complaint did not relate back to first complaint that had been dismissed without prejudice because second complaint was a separate action not an amendment to first complaint]; Eng v. County of Los Angeles (C.D.Cal. 2010) 737 F.Supp.2d 1078, 1099 [relation back doctrine “does not apply with equal force to actions that are, in actuality, entirely new or separate proceedings”].) Plaintiffs’ reliance on Branick v. Downey Savings & Loan Assn. (2006) 39 Cal.4th 235 (Branick) is misplaced. | 2 | 2 |
ENG v. County of Los Angelesgreen2 sentences2024(See O’Donnell v. Vencor Inc. (9th Cir. 2006) 466 F.3d 1104, 1111 [second complaint did not relate back to first complaint that had been dismissed without prejudice because second complaint was a separate action not an amendment to first complaint]; Eng v. County of Los Angeles (C.D.Cal. 2010) 737 F.Supp.2d 1078, 1099 [relation back doctrine “does not apply with equal force to actions that are, in actuality, entirely new or separate proceedings”].) Plaintiffs’ reliance on Branick v. Downey Savings & Loan Assn. (2006) 39 Cal.4th 235 (Branick) is misplaced. 2024(See O’Donnell v. Vencor Inc. (9th Cir. 2006) 466 F.3d 1104, 1111 [second complaint did not relate back to first complaint that had been dismissed without prejudice because second complaint was a separate action not an amendment to first complaint]; Eng v. County of Los Angeles (C.D.Cal. 2010) 737 F.Supp.2d 1078, 1099 [relation back doctrine “does not apply with equal force to actions that are, in actuality, entirely new or separate proceedings”].) Plaintiffs’ reliance on Branick v. Downey Savings & Loan Assn. (2006) 39 Cal.4th 235 (Branick) is misplaced. | 2 | 2 |
San Diego Cnty. Health & Human Servs. Agency v. K.C. (In re A.C.)green1 sentence2025(In re A.C. (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 661, 672 [“opinion or argument of appellant’s counsel without ‘citation to any recognized legal authority’ ” may be deemed forfeited and disregarded].) The only evidence proffered in support of class certification of the rest break claim was Dieves’ declaration that he never saw anyone take or be relieved of duty for a rest break and he was never relieved of duty for a rest break. | 1 | 1 |
Reyes v. Koshagreen2 sentences2016(Wall Street Network, Ltd. v. New York Times Co. (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 1171, 1177 [ 80 Cal.Rptr.3d 6 ]; Yu v. Signet Bank/Virginia (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 1377, 1398 [ 82 Cal.Rptr.2d 304 ]; Reyes v. Kosha (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 451, 466, fn. 6 [ 76 Cal.Rptr.2d 457 ].) Furthermore, as the parties do not dispute that the complaint’s other claims (the third through seventh causes of action) are derivative, the propriety of summary judgment with respect to them hinges on the existence of triable issues regarding the rest break claim. 2016(Wall Street Network, Ltd. v. New York Times Co. (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 1171, 1177 [ 80 Cal.Rptr.3d 6 ]; Yu v. Signet Bank/Virginia (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 1377, 1398 [ 82 Cal.Rptr.2d 304 ]; Reyes v. Kosha (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 451, 466, fn. 6 [ 76 Cal.Rptr.2d 457 ].) Furthermore, as the parties do not dispute that the complaint’s other claims (the third through seventh causes of action) are derivative, the propriety of summary judgment with respect to them hinges on the existence of triable issues regarding the rest break claim. | 1 | 1 |
Housley v. Haywoodgreen2 sentences2016Generally, “the sole declaration of a party opposing a summary judgment motion which raises a triable issue of fact is sufficient to deny that motion.” (Estate of Housley (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 342, 359 [ 65 Cal.Rptr.2d 628 ].) As a nonex-pert witness, appellant was entitled to provide testimony grounded in his experience and his perceptions as an E.M.E. employee regarding workplace conditions and the temporal length of activities. 2016Generally, “the sole declaration of a party opposing a summary judgment motion which raises a triable issue of fact is sufficient to deny that motion.” (Estate of Housley (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 342, 359 [ 65 Cal.Rptr.2d 628 ].) As a nonex-pert witness, appellant was entitled to provide testimony grounded in his experience and his perceptions as an E.M.E. employee regarding workplace conditions and the temporal length of activities. | 1 | 1 |
Wall Street Network, Ltd. v. New York Times Co.green2 sentences2016(Wall Street Network, Ltd. v. New York Times Co. (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 1171, 1177 [ 80 Cal.Rptr.3d 6 ]; Yu v. Signet Bank/Virginia (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 1377, 1398 [ 82 Cal.Rptr.2d 304 ]; Reyes v. Kosha (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 451, 466, fn. 6 [ 76 Cal.Rptr.2d 457 ].) Furthermore, as the parties do not dispute that the complaint’s other claims (the third through seventh causes of action) are derivative, the propriety of summary judgment with respect to them hinges on the existence of triable issues regarding the rest break claim. 2016(Wall Street Network, Ltd. v. New York Times Co. (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 1171, 1177 [ 80 Cal.Rptr.3d 6 ]; Yu v. Signet Bank/Virginia (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 1377, 1398 [ 82 Cal.Rptr.2d 304 ]; Reyes v. Kosha (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 451, 466, fn. 6 [ 76 Cal.Rptr.2d 457 ].) Furthermore, as the parties do not dispute that the complaint’s other claims (the third through seventh causes of action) are derivative, the propriety of summary judgment with respect to them hinges on the existence of triable issues regarding the rest break claim. | 1 | 1 |
Yu v. Signet Bank/Virginiagreen2 sentences2016(Wall Street Network, Ltd. v. New York Times Co. (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 1171, 1177 [ 80 Cal.Rptr.3d 6 ]; Yu v. Signet Bank/Virginia (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 1377, 1398 [ 82 Cal.Rptr.2d 304 ]; Reyes v. Kosha (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 451, 466, fn. 6 [ 76 Cal.Rptr.2d 457 ].) Furthermore, as the parties do not dispute that the complaint’s other claims (the third through seventh causes of action) are derivative, the propriety of summary judgment with respect to them hinges on the existence of triable issues regarding the rest break claim. 2016(Wall Street Network, Ltd. v. New York Times Co. (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 1171, 1177 [ 80 Cal.Rptr.3d 6 ]; Yu v. Signet Bank/Virginia (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 1377, 1398 [ 82 Cal.Rptr.2d 304 ]; Reyes v. Kosha (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 451, 466, fn. 6 [ 76 Cal.Rptr.2d 457 ].) Furthermore, as the parties do not dispute that the complaint’s other claims (the third through seventh causes of action) are derivative, the propriety of summary judgment with respect to them hinges on the existence of triable issues regarding the rest break claim. | 1 | 1 |
Faulkinbury v. Boyd & Associates, Inc.green2 sentences2013(Faulkinbury, supra, 216 Cal.App.4th at p. 235 [explaining the reasoning set forth in its vacated opinion].) Similarly, on the plaintiffs’ rest break claim, the court ruled that the *724 defendant’s liability for failing to authorize and permit rest breaks could not be established without individual inquiry into whether each employee had been provided the opportunity to take rest periods. 2013Whether or not the employee was able to take the [off-duty] required break goes to damages, and ‘[t]he fact that individual [employees] may have different damages does not require denial of the class certification motion.’ [Citation.]” (Faulkinbury; supra, 216 Cal.App.4th at p. 235 , italics omitted.) The court reached a similar conclusion regarding the plaintiffs’ rest break claim, explaining that the plaintiffs had alleged the defendant “had no formal rest break policy” and required employees to stay at their post for their entire shift. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Cicairos v. Summit Logistics, Inc.
green
2 sentences2025(See Cicairos v. Summit Logistics, Inc. (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 949, 961-963 .) In Cicairos, the appellate court reversed a grant of summary judgment in favor of the employer (a distributor of grocery goods) on a rest break claim, finding triable issues regarding liability based on evidence the employer’s timekeeping system did not include a code for rest breaks (arguably encouraging drivers not to take such breaks), testimony from the employee truck drivers that they felt pressured not to take rest breaks, and evidence that management was aware drivers were not taking rest breaks. 2006(Cicairos v. Summit Logistics, Inc., supra, 133 Cal.App.4th at p. 954 .) Cicairos then held that the plaintiffs were not required to take their rest break claims to arbitration because the collective-bargaining agreement did “not contain a provision whereby the plaintiffs agreed to arbitrate alleged violations of statutory rights.” (Id. at pp. 959-960.) The court noted, “[a]lthough statutory rights violations allegations can be resolved by arbitration, the parties in this case did not agree to do so.” (Id. at p. 960.) Cicairos held that arbitration was “not required simply because the provisio | 2 | 2006–2025 |
Branick v. Downey Savings & Loan Ass'n
green
2 sentences2024(See O’Donnell v. Vencor Inc. (9th Cir. 2006) 466 F.3d 1104, 1111 [second complaint did not relate back to first complaint that had been dismissed without prejudice because second complaint was a separate action not an amendment to first complaint]; Eng v. County of Los Angeles (C.D.Cal. 2010) 737 F.Supp.2d 1078, 1099 [relation back doctrine “does not apply with equal force to actions that are, in actuality, entirely new or separate proceedings”].) Plaintiffs’ reliance on Branick v. Downey Savings & Loan Assn. (2006) 39 Cal.4th 235 (Branick) is misplaced. 2024(See O’Donnell v. Vencor Inc. (9th Cir. 2006) 466 F.3d 1104, 1111 [second complaint did not relate back to first complaint that had been dismissed without prejudice because second complaint was a separate action not an amendment to first complaint]; Eng v. County of Los Angeles (C.D.Cal. 2010) 737 F.Supp.2d 1078, 1099 [relation back doctrine “does not apply with equal force to actions that are, in actuality, entirely new or separate proceedings”].) Plaintiffs’ reliance on Branick v. Downey Savings & Loan Assn. (2006) 39 Cal.4th 235 (Branick) is misplaced. | 2 | 2024–2024 |
Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court
green
2 sentences2013The Supreme Court granted review “to resolve uncertainties in the handling of wage and hour class certification motions.” (Brinker, supra, 53 Cal.4th at p. 1021 .) *719 The plaintiffs’ rest break claim asserted that the defendant had adopted a uniform, unlawful policy that provided employees a single 10-minute rest break for every four hours worked. 2013Out of respect for the problems arising from one-way intervention, however, a court generally should eschew resolution of such issues unless necessary. [Citations.] Consequently, a trial court does not abuse its discretion if it certifies (or denies certification of) a class without deciding one or more issues affecting the nature of a given element if resolution of such issues would not affect the ultimate certification decision.” (Id. at p. 1025.) 12 The Supreme Court then considered the scope of an employer’s duties under relevant statutes and IWC wage orders to afford rest and meal periods | 2 | 2013–2013 |
Donohue v. AMN Services, LLC
green
1 sentence2025Without citing any authority or providing any reasoned argument, Dieves summarily asserts that if a jury were to find that Butte Sand discouraged drivers from taking meal breaks, “it could then reasonably infer that [Butte Sand] discouraged rest breaks, too.” But, as Butte Sand points out, and Dieves does not dispute, the Donohue presumption “derives from an employer’s duty to maintain accurate records of meal periods.” (Donohue, supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 76 .) Employers are required “to give employees a mechanism for recording their meal periods and to ensure that employees use the mechanism pr | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Bradley v. Networkers International, LLC
green
1 sentence2025(Bradley v. Networkers Internat., LLC (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 1129, 1149 ; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 11090, subd. 7(A)(3).) Given the underlying rationale of the Donohue presumption—i.e., not to reward employers for a failure to keep adequate and required meal break records—and that employers do not have an obligation to record rest breaks, we conclude no presumption 12 arose from the time records as to the rest break claim. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Hernandez v. Mendoza
green
1 sentence2025On the one hand, Hernandez explained that its reasoning applies to situations “where the employer has failed to keep records required by statute” (Hernandez, supra, 199 Cal.App.3d at p. 727 ), and California does not require employees to keep records regarding when rest breaks occur. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
McLean v. State of California
green
1 sentence2024(See Wage Order No. 5, subd. 11(A).) The relevant rest break requirement is also found in the wage order, which mandates: “Every employer shall authorize and permit all employees to take rest periods . . . .” (Wage Order No. 5, subd. 12(A).) The Labor Code does not define the term “employer” (McLean, supra, 1 Cal.5th at p. 627 ), but a definition is found in the wage order. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.