Kamar v. Radio Shack Corp.
District Court, C.D. California
1Opinion of the Court
Proceedings: IN CHAMBERS (No Proceedings Held)
A. HOWARD MATZ, District Judge.
I. INTRODUCTION
In an earlier order in this putative class action, the Court wrote:
when an employee is required to report for work and does report, but is not put to work or is given less than half the scheduled work, “the employee shall be paid for half the usual or scheduled day’s work, but in no event for less than two (2) hours nor more than four (4) hours, at the employee’s regular rate of pay....” [Citation.] When an employee is required to work a “split shift” (is scheduled for two nonconsecutive shifts in the…
2Cases cited30 opinions
- Amchem Products, Inc. v. WindsorSupreme Court of the United States · 1997
- General Telephone Co. of Southwest v. FalconSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1946
- Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1998
- Staton v. Boeing Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2003
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by26 opinions
- Jesus Leyva v. Medlin Industries IncCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2013
- Barbosa v. Cargill Meat Solutions Corp.District Court, E.D. California · 2013
- Harris v. Vector Marketing Corp.District Court, N.D. California · 2010
- Mazzei v. Money StoreDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2012
- In re ABM Indus. Overtime Cases, California Court of Appeal, 5th District2017
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.