civil penalty violation in California

2023(See, e.g., § 226.3 [providing that “the Labor Commissioner shall” enforce this section], Raines v. Coastal Pacific Food Distributors, Inc. (2018) 23 Cal.App.5th 667, 675 [PAGA action to enforce § 226.3]; § 256 [providing that “[t]he Labor Commissioner shall impose a civil penalty”], and Villacres v. ABM Industries Inc. (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 562, 579 [PAGA action to recover a civil penalty for violation of section 256].) Similarly, that an employee cannot file an individual action for violations of the Act does not mean the Legislature also intended to preclude 19 a PAGA action based on the s

2023(See, e.g., § 226.3 [providing that “the Labor Commissioner shall” enforce this section], Raines v. Coastal Pacific Food Distributors, Inc. (2018) 23 Cal.App.5th 667, 675 [PAGA action to enforce § 226.3]; § 256 [providing that “[t]he Labor Commissioner shall impose a civil penalty”], and Villacres v. ABM Industries Inc. (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 562, 579 [PAGA action to recover a civil penalty for violation of section 256].) Similarly, that an employee cannot file an individual action for violations of the Act does not mean the Legislature also intended to preclude 19 a PAGA action based on the s

2023(See, e.g., § 226.3 [providing that “the Labor Commissioner shall” enforce this section], Raines v. Coastal Pacific Food Distributors, Inc. (2018) 23 Cal.App.5th 667, 675 [PAGA action to enforce § 226.3]; § 256 [providing that “[t]he Labor Commissioner shall impose a civil penalty”], and Villacres v. ABM Industries Inc. (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 562, 579 [PAGA action to recover a civil penalty for violation of section 256].) Similarly, that an employee cannot file an individual action for violations of the Act does not mean the Legislature also intended to preclude 19 a PAGA action based on the s

2023(See, e.g., § 226.3 [providing that “the Labor Commissioner shall” enforce this section], Raines v. Coastal Pacific Food Distributors, Inc. (2018) 23 Cal.App.5th 667, 675 [PAGA action to enforce § 226.3]; § 256 [providing that “[t]he Labor Commissioner shall impose a civil penalty”], and Villacres v. ABM Industries Inc. (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 562, 579 [PAGA action to recover a civil penalty for violation of section 256].) Similarly, that an employee cannot file an individual action for violations of the Act does not mean the Legislature also intended to preclude 19 a PAGA action based on the s

2015(See Wolf v. Walt Disney Pictures & Television (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 1107, 1142-1143 [ 76 Cal.Rptr.3d 585 ] [plaintiff received monetary recovery, but defendant prevailed on declaratory relief claims in a cross-complaint; remanded for trial court to exercise its discretion to determine prevailing party under § 1032, subd. (a)(4)].) We see no legal basis for a conclusion that Mercedes-Benz was a “prevailing party” within the meaning of section 1032, subdivision (a)(4).

2015(See Wolf v. Walt Disney Pictures & Television (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 1107, 1142-1143 [ 76 Cal.Rptr.3d 585 ] [plaintiff received monetary recovery, but defendant prevailed on declaratory relief claims in a cross-complaint; remanded for trial court to exercise its discretion to determine prevailing party under § 1032, subd. (a)(4)].) We see no legal basis for a conclusion that Mercedes-Benz was a “prevailing party” within the meaning of section 1032, subdivision (a)(4).

2010Section 2699, subdivision (f), which was added in 2003, 6 7provides in pertinent part: “For all provisions of this code except those for which a civil penalty is specifically provided, there is established a civil penalty for a violation [7] of these provisions, as follows: [][] (1) If, at the time of the alleged violation, the person does not employ one or more employees, the civil penalty is five hundred dollars ($500). [ft] (2) If, at the time of the alleged violation, the person employs one or more employees, the civil penalty is one hundred dollars ($100) for each aggrieved employee per p

2010Section 2699, subdivision (f), which was added in 2003, 6 7provides in pertinent part: “For all provisions of this code except those for which a civil penalty is specifically provided, there is established a civil penalty for a violation [7] of these provisions, as follows: [][] (1) If, at the time of the alleged violation, the person does not employ one or more employees, the civil penalty is five hundred dollars ($500). [ft] (2) If, at the time of the alleged violation, the person employs one or more employees, the civil penalty is one hundred dollars ($100) for each aggrieved employee per p

1995(See People v. Harris (1994) 9 Cal.4th 407, 426 [ 37 Cal.Rptr.2d 200 , 886 P.2d 1193 ].) The court rejected an instruction proposed by BMW concerning the warranty rights of lessees of used vehicles leased from a dealer with the balance of a manufacturer’s new car warranty.

1995(See People v. Harris (1994) 9 Cal.4th 407, 426 [ 37 Cal.Rptr.2d 200 , 886 P.2d 1193 ].) The court rejected an instruction proposed by BMW concerning the warranty rights of lessees of used vehicles leased from a dealer with the balance of a manufacturer’s new car warranty.