Legal Opinion
Minnick v. Auto. Creations, Inc.
California Court of Appeal, 5th District
Decided July 28, 2017No. D070555PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtHaller, J.
*1002Nathan Minnick sued his former joint employers, Automobile Creations, Inc. and Dynamic Auto Images, Inc. (defendants), alleging their vacation policy violated state law because it required employees who worked for less than one year to forfeit vested vacation pay. Minnick brought the action individually and on behalf of all similarly situated employees, and sought penalties under California's Labor Code Private Attorney General Act of 2004 (PAGA) ( Lab. Code,1 § 2698 et seq. ).
The court sustained defendants' demurrer without leave to amend on Minnick's second amended complaint. We affirm.…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Schifando v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 2003
- Loeffler v. Target CorporationCalifornia Supreme Court · 2014
- Reichardt v. HoffmanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1997
- Rakestraw v. California Physicians' ServiceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2000
- Suastez v. Plastic Dress-Up Co.California Supreme Court · 1982
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Amy's Kitchen v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co.California Court of Appeal · 2022
- Delgado v. Oldcastle Infrastructure, Inc.District Court, E.D. California · 2025
- Diane Slater v. Federal Deposit Insurance CorporationDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2025
- Flores v. Sharp Grossmont Hospital CA4/1California Court of Appeal · 2021
- Llamas v. Spitz CA4/1California Court of Appeal · 2021
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.