Legal Opinion

Carrington v. Starbucks Corp.

California Court of Appeal, 5th District

Decided November 27, 2018No. D072392PublishedCited by 18 opinions

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

  1. Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 2012
  2. Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLCCalifornia Supreme Court · 2014
  3. Foreman & Clark Corp. v. FallonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1971
  4. Arias v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 2009
  5. Murphy v. Kenneth Cole Productions, Inc.California Supreme Court · 2007

15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by18 opinions

  1. Donohue v. AMN Services, LLCCalifornia Supreme Court · 2021
  2. Ambrose v. US Med-Equip, LLCDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2024
  3. Bowen v. JEA Senior Living Health and Welfare Benefit Plan, LLCDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2023
  4. Bowen v. JEA Senior Living Health and Welfare Benefit Plan, LLCDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2023
  5. Cavazos v. Salas Concrete, Inc.District Court, E.D. California · 2020

13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API