Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Kaanaana v. Barrett Bus. Servs., Inc.

California Court of Appeal, 5th District

Decided November 30, 2018No. B276420; B279838Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partGrimes, J.

I concur with the majority opinion on all points except the application of the prevailing wage to the work performed by plaintiffs. In my view, the statutory provisions requiring payment of prevailing wage rates do not apply because plaintiffs are not engaged in "public works" within the meaning of the prevailing wage law ( Lab. Code, §§ 1720 - 1861 ).1

I agree with the majority that "[w]ork done for irrigation, utility, reclamation, and improvement districts, and other districts of this type" is not confined to "construction work." As the majority correctly points out, the prevailing wage law…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Morris v. WilliamsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1967
  2. Pineda v. Williams-Sonoma Stores, Inc.California Supreme Court · 2011
  3. Lusardi Construction Co. v. AubryCalifornia Supreme Court · 1992
  4. City of Huntington Beach v. Board of AdministrationCalifornia Supreme Court · 1992
  5. State Building & Construction Trades Council v. City of VistaCalifornia Supreme Court · 2012

3 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