fact-intensive inquiry in California

2026Exemption defenses require “a fact-intensive inquiry.” (UPS Wage & Hour Cases, supra, 190 Cal.App.4th at p. 1014.) The applicability of an exemption is a mixed question of law and fact, but the legal analysis cannot be performed until the factual findings are made.

2026Code, § 226.7, subd. (e).) “ ‘[T]he assertion of an exemption from the overtime laws is considered to be an affirmative defense, and therefore the employer bears the burden of proving the 15. employee’s exemption.’ ” (Negri v. Koning & Associates (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 392, 397 (Negri). “[W]e narrowly construe exemptions against the employer, ‘and their application is limited to those employees plainly and unmistakably within their terms.’ ” (Peabody v. Time Warner Cable, Inc. (2014) 59 Cal.4th 662, 667 .) Nevertheless, “[d]etermining whether or not all of the elements of the exemption have be

2015(See Duran, supra, 59 Cal.4th at p. 27 [“the outside salesperson exemption [to overtime pay] has the obvious potential to generate individual issues because the primary considerations are how and where the employee actually spends his or her workday”]; Sav-On, supra, 34 Cal.4th at pp. 336-337 [“Any dispute over ‘how the employee actually spends his or her time’ [citation], of course, has the potential to generate individual issues.”]; Soderstedt v. CBIZ Southern California, LLC (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 133, 148 [ 127 Cal.Rptr.3d 394 ] (Soderstedt) [“evaluation of whether the elements of the admi

2015(See Duran, supra, 59 Cal.4th at p. 27 [“the outside salesperson exemption [to overtime pay] has the obvious potential to generate individual issues because the primary considerations are how and where the employee actually spends his or her workday”]; Sav-On, supra, 34 Cal.4th at pp. 336-337 [“Any dispute over ‘how the employee actually spends his or her time’ [citation], of course, has the potential to generate individual issues.”]; Soderstedt v. CBIZ Southern California, LLC (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 133, 148 [ 127 Cal.Rptr.3d 394 ] (Soderstedt) [“evaluation of whether the elements of the admi

2015(See Duran, supra, 59 Cal.4th at p. 27 [“the outside salesperson exemption [to overtime pay] has the obvious potential to generate individual issues because the primary considerations are how and where the employee actually spends his or her workday”]; Sav-On, supra, 34 Cal.4th at pp. 336-337 [“Any dispute over ‘how the employee actually spends his or her time’ [citation], of course, has the potential to generate individual issues.”]; Soderstedt v. CBIZ Southern California, LLC (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 133, 148 [ 127 Cal.Rptr.3d 394 ] (Soderstedt) [“evaluation of whether the elements of the admi

2015(See Duran, supra, 59 Cal.4th at p. 27 [“the outside salesperson exemption [to overtime pay] has the obvious potential to generate individual issues because the primary considerations are how and where the employee actually spends his or her workday”]; Sav-On, supra, 34 Cal.4th at pp. 336-337 [“Any dispute over ‘how the employee actually spends his or her time’ [citation], of course, has the potential to generate individual issues.”]; Soderstedt v. CBIZ Southern California, LLC (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 133, 148 [ 127 Cal.Rptr.3d 394 ] (Soderstedt) [“evaluation of whether the elements of the admi

2019Jet Mgmt. , Inc. (9th Cir. 2010) 615 F.3d 1151 , 1157 ["whether employees are similarly *673 situated- i.e. , whether they are 'similar in all material respects,' [citation]-is a fact-intensive inquiry, and what facts are material will vary depending on the case"].) Like most claims of race discrimination, the inquiry here involves contested facts from which competing inferences could be drawn.

2019Jet Mgmt, Inc. (9th Cir. 2010) 615 F.3d 1151, 1157 ["whether employees are similarly situated—i.e., whether they are 'similar in all material respects,' [citation]—is a fact-intensive inquiry, and what facts are material will vary depending on the case"].) Like most claims of race discrimination, the inquiry here involves contested facts from which competing inferences could be drawn.

2004Indeed, to decertify a class on the issue of damages or restitution may well be effectively to sound the death-knell of the class action device.’ [Citations.]” Relying on language in Ramirez v. Yosemite Water Co. (1999) 20 Cal.4th 785 [ 85 Cal.Rptr.2d 844 , 978 P.2d 2 ], amici curiae call for “an individualized, employee-by-employee assessment of the exemption standards,” involving “a fact-intensive inquiry into the duties actually performed by employees.” But close attention to the facts may require an individual adjudication of exempt status in certain cases while permitting a group adjudica

2004Indeed, to decertify a class on the issue of damages or restitution may well be effectively to sound the death-knell of the class action device.’ [Citations.]” Relying on language in Ramirez v. Yosemite Water Co. (1999) 20 Cal.4th 785 [ 85 Cal.Rptr.2d 844 , 978 P.2d 2 ], amici curiae call for “an individualized, employee-by-employee assessment of the exemption standards,” involving “a fact-intensive inquiry into the duties actually performed by employees.” But close attention to the facts may require an individual adjudication of exempt status in certain cases while permitting a group adjudica

2025(See Chabolla v. ClassPass, Inc. (9th Cir. 2025) 129 F.4th 1147 , 1155 [“ ‘[T]he [reasonably conspicuous notice] inquiry has always been context-and fact-specific.’ ”]; Blizzard Entertainment, Inc., supra, 76 Cal.App.5th at p. 947 [characterizing the analysis as “ ‘a fact-intensive inquiry’ ” hinging on various “criteria, such as the size, color, contrast, and location of any text notices; the obviousness of any hyperlinks; and overall screen ‘clutter’ ”].) 23 DISPOSITION We affirm the trial court’s December 16, 2024 order denying appellants’ motion to compel arbitration.

2025(See Chabolla v. ClassPass, Inc. (9th Cir. 2025) 129 F.4th 1147, 1155 [“ ‘[T]he [reasonably conspicuous notice] inquiry has always been context-and fact-specific.’ ”]; Blizzard Entertainment, Inc., supra, 76 Cal.App.5th at p. 947 [characterizing the analysis as “ ‘a fact-intensive inquiry’ ” hinging on various “criteria, such as the size, color, contrast, and location of any text notices; the obviousness of any hyperlinks; and overall screen ‘clutter’ ”].) 23 DISPOSITION We affirm the trial court’s December 16, 2024 order denying appellants’ motion to compel arbitration.

2023(People v. Warren (1990) 219 Cal.App.3d 619, 622-623 .) “ ‘Determining whether the requisite agency relationship exists “necessarily turns on the degree of the 6 Government’s participation in the private party’s activities, . . . a question that can only be resolved ‘in light of all the circumstances.’ ” [Citation.] This is . . . “a fact-intensive inquiry that is guided by common law agency principles.” [Citation.] The defendant bears the burden of proving that an agency relationship exists. [Citation.]’ ” ( Wilkinson, supra, 163 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1565-1566 [adopting federal standard].) “ ‘In

2016(People v. Warren (1990) 219 Cal.App.3d 619, 622-623 (Warren).) “ ‘Determining whether the requisite agency relationship exists “necessarily turns on the degree of the Government’s participation in the private party’s activities, . . . a question that can only be resolved ‘in light of all the circumstances.’ ” [Citation.] This is . . . “a fact-intensive inquiry that is guided by common law agency principles.” [Citation.] The defendant bears the burden of proving that an agency relationship exists. [Citation.]’ ” ( Wilkinson, supra, 163 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1565-1566 [adopting federal standard].)

2026Code, § 54953, subd. (a).) “Statutory exceptions authorizing closed sessions of legislative bodies are construed narrowly and the Brown Act ‘sunshine law’ is construed liberally in favor of openness in conducting public business.” (Shapiro v. San Diego City Council (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 904, 917 (Shapiro); see also Cal. Const., art.

2026(See Sav-On, supra, 34 Cal.4th at p. 330 [“task classification is a mixed question of law and fact appropriate for a court to address separately from calculating the amount of time specific employees actually spend on specific tasks”].) “The primary consideration in a misclassification case pertains to ‘the realistic requirements of the job,” which is a question of fact.

2026Code, § 226.7, subd. (e).) “ ‘[T]he assertion of an exemption from the overtime laws is considered to be an affirmative defense, and therefore the employer bears the burden of proving the 15. employee’s exemption.’ ” (Negri v. Koning & Associates (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 392, 397 (Negri). “[W]e narrowly construe exemptions against the employer, ‘and their application is limited to those employees plainly and unmistakably within their terms.’ ” (Peabody v. Time Warner Cable, Inc. (2014) 59 Cal.4th 662, 667 .) Nevertheless, “[d]etermining whether or not all of the elements of the exemption have be

2025Thus, the minority of courts believe that it is more logical and fair to treat collectibility as an affirmative defense which the defendant/attorney must plead and prove in order to avoid or mitigate the consequences of that attorney’s negligent acts”] [collecting cases]; Teodorescu v. Bushnell, Gage, Reizen & Byington (1993) 201 Mich. App. 260, 268 [similar]; see also Measure and elements of damages recoverable for attorney’s negligence in preparing or conducting litigation—Twentieth Century cases, 90 A.L.R. 4th 1033 , § 17.) As stated, Kaushansky does not raise the issue, and we leave it for

2024K.Y. characterizes the important public issue as “whether a medication disability may be imposed where the evidence shows that the conservatee is medication compliant.” She acknowledges, however, that the relevant question on appeal is “whether substantial evidence exists from which a reasonable trier of fact could have found by clear and convincing proof that appellant lacked the capacity to give or withhold informed consent,” and that “the capacity to provide informed consent does not turn upon medication compliance.” While evidence of K.Y.’s past and current medication compliance is relevan

2024K.Y. characterizes the important public issue as “whether a medication disability may be imposed where the evidence shows that the conservatee is medication compliant.” She acknowledges, however, that the relevant question on appeal is “whether substantial evidence exists from which a reasonable trier of fact could have found by clear and convincing proof that appellant lacked the capacity to give or withhold informed consent,” and that “the capacity to provide informed consent does not turn upon medication compliance.” While evidence of K.Y.’s past and current medication compliance is relevan

2024He fails to do so here in both respects.11 The lack of competent evidence to support Ralls’s constitutional claim is dispositive, particularly because the first Lynch “technique” calls for a fact- intensive inquiry that focuses on the crime and the particular person before the court (Dillon, supra, 34 Cal.3d at p. 479 (plur. opn.)).

2022(See City of San Buenaventura v. United Water Conservation Dist. (2017) 3 Cal.5th 1191, 1204 (San Buenaventura); Apartment Assn., supra, 24 Cal.4th at p. 836 .) The trial court’s application of the statute of limitations to undisputed facts is subject to independent review, but where “a fact-intensive exception to the statute [i]s 6 at issue,” any underlying factual findings are reviewed for substantial evidence.