Myzer v. Emark Corp.
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
HUFFMAN, J.
Jeff Myzer brought this class action on behalf of employees of Emark Corporation (Emark) who had been denied wages and benefits due. The court denied his motion to determine priority of claims and granted the cross-motions of defendants Pat Keig, Mike Rummel and Rieck and Crotty, P.C. (Rieck & Crotty), Emark’s secured creditors. Myzer appeals the denial of his motion and the ensuing judgment, contending the employees’ claims are entitled to priority under Code of Civil Procedure 1 section 1205. We agree.
Factual and Procedural Background
Rieck & Crotty’s Claim
Rieck & Crotty…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Roberts v. City of PalmdaleCalifornia Supreme Court · 1993
- Viking Pools, Inc. v. MaloneyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1989
- Warren v. SohnIndiana Supreme Court · 1887
- Sitton v. DuboisWashington Supreme Court · 1896
- Graham v. Magann Fawke Lumber Co.Court of Appeals of Kentucky · 1904
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Hearn v. HowardCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2009
- Kulshrestha v. First Union Commercial Corp.California Supreme Court · 2004