Koval v. Pacific Bell Telephone Co.
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
DONDERO, J.
INTRODUCTION
Plaintiffs Frank Koval, Mike Williams, Vanmark Strickland, and Donald Washington filed this consolidated class action lawsuit against their employer, defendant Pacific Bell Telephone Company (doing business as AT&T California) (Pacific Bell). They alleged Pacific Bell violated California law by failing to relinquish control over their activities during meal and rest break periods, and they moved for class certification. Relying, in part, on Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court (2012) 53 Cal.4th 1004 [139 Cal.Rptr.3d 315, 273 P.3d 513] (Brinker), the trial…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 2012
- Murphy v. Kenneth Cole Productions, Inc.California Supreme Court · 2007
- Linder v. Thrifty Oil Co.California Supreme Court · 2000
- Sav-On Drug Stores, Inc. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 2004
- Duran v. U.S. Bank National Assn.California Supreme Court · 2014
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Lampe v. Queen of the Valley Med. Ctr., California Court of Appeal, 5th District2018
- Sandoval v. M1 Auto Collisions CentersDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2015
- Duran v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n, California Court of Appeal, 5th District2018
- Barriga v. 99 Cents Only Stores LLCCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2020
- Barriga v. 99 Cents Only Stores LLCCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2020
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.