Legal Opinion
Haro v. City of Rosemead
California Court of Appeal
Decided June 9, 2009No. B210629PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
FLIER, J.
Appellants Randy Haro and Robert B allin filed an action against respondent City of Rosemead, alleging in their complaint that this “is a collective action brought under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), seeking compensation for all hours worked.” Title 29 United States Code section 216 is part of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA; 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq.). The trial court denied appellants’ motion to certify as a class under Code of Civil Procedure section 382 (section 382) individuals who worked for respondent as nonexempt employees. This appeal is from that order.
We find that…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- American Pipe & Construction Co. v. UtahSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. v. SperlingSupreme Court of the United States · 1990
- Daar v. Yellow Cab Co.California Supreme Court · 1967
- LaChapelle v. Owens-Illinois, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1975
- Kinney Shoe Corporation, a New York Corporation v. Bob W. Vorhes and John A. WagnerCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1977
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Munoz v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2015
- Center v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2011
- Aguirre v. Amscan Holdings, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2015
- Stone v. Alameda Health SystemCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2023
- Stone v. Alameda Health SystemCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2023