Legal Opinion

Dailey v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.

California Court of Appeal

Decided March 20, 2013No. D061055PublishedCited by 44 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

IRION, J.

I

INTRODUCTION

William Dailey (Dailey), individually and on behalf of a proposed class of similarly situated individuals, sued Sears, Roebuck and Co. (Sears), alleging several causes of action arising from Dailey’s core contention that Sears violated California’s wage and hour laws, including those governing overtime pay and rest and meal breaks, with respect to its auto center “Managers” and “Assistant Managers” (collectively, the proposed class members). Dailey sought to certify the proposed class, arguing that his theory of liability is particularly well suited to class…

2Cases cited28 opinions

  1. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. DukesSupreme Court of the United States · 2011
  2. Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 2012
  3. Murphy v. Kenneth Cole Productions, Inc.California Supreme Court · 2007
  4. Linder v. Thrifty Oil Co.California Supreme Court · 2000
  5. Sav-On Drug Stores, Inc. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 2004

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

3Cited by44 opinions

  1. Duran v. U.S. Bank National Assn.California Supreme Court · 2014
  2. Ayala v. Antelope Valley Newspapers, Inc.California Supreme Court · 2014
  3. Tellez v. Rich Voss Trucking, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2015
  4. Williams v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2013
  5. Alberts v. Aurora Behavioral Health CareCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2015

39 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