Legal Opinion
Mamika v. Barca
California Court of Appeal
Decided December 11, 1998No. C027092PublishedCited by 37 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
HULL, J.
The case involves the proper method of calculating “waiting time” penalties under Labor Code section 203 (further section references are to the Labor Code unless otherwise designated).
Plaintiff Paul J. Mamika quit his job with United Vintners, U.S.A. Trust represented by trustee, Gino Barca, because defendant failed to pay his wages. The trial court awarded plaintiff his unpaid wages of $38,500, plus interest, and a penalty of $5,000 pursuant to section 203. On appeal, plaintiff contends this penalty was improperly computed. We agree and modify the judgment to reflect a penalty…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Delaney v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1990
- Tidewater Marine Western, Inc. v. BradshawCalifornia Supreme Court · 1996
- California School Employees Ass'n. v. Governing Board of the Marine Community College DistrictCalifornia Supreme Court · 1994
- Gould v. Maryland Sound Industries, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1995
- Rudd v. California Casualty General InsuranceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1990
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by37 opinions
- Villacres v. Abm Industries Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2010
- Caliber Bodyworks, Inc. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2005
- Grant-Burton v. Covenant Care, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2002
- Road Sprinkler Fitters Local Union No. 669 v. G & G Fire Sprinklers, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2002
- Wackeen v. MalisCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2002
32 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.