Carrington v. Starbucks Corp.
California Court of Appeal, 5th District
1Opinion of the CourtGuerrero, J.
*507Kileigh Carrington filed a complaint against her former employer, Starbucks Corporation, asserting a representative cause of action under the Private Attorney General Act (PAGA) ( Labor Code, § 2698 et seq. ),1 claiming Starbucks failed to properly provide meal breaks or pay meal period premiums for certain employees in violation of sections 226.7 and 512. In a bifurcated bench trial on plaintiff's action, the trial court determined Starbucks was liable for these violations and imposed penalties of $150,000, with 75 percent thereof payable to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA)…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 2012
- Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLCCalifornia Supreme Court · 2014
- Foreman & Clark Corp. v. FallonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1971
- Arias v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 2009
- Murphy v. Kenneth Cole Productions, Inc.California Supreme Court · 2007
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by18 opinions
- Donohue v. AMN Services, LLCCalifornia Supreme Court · 2021
- Ambrose v. US Med-Equip, LLCDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2024
- Bowen v. JEA Senior Living Health and Welfare Benefit Plan, LLCDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2023
- Bowen v. JEA Senior Living Health and Welfare Benefit Plan, LLCDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2023
- Cavazos v. Salas Concrete, Inc.District Court, E.D. California · 2020
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.