This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.
Subscribe to the Daily Journal for access to Daily Appellate Reports, Verdicts, Judicial Profiles and more...

Perspective

May 10, 2012

Supreme Court's tortured logic in Kirby

The Court's twisted reasoning attempts to distinguish "actions" and "actions for damages." By Jessica Weisel and Gary M. McLaughlin of Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP

By Jessica Weisel and Gary M. McLaughlin

From the outset, Kirby v. Immoos Fire Protection Inc. (2012) Case No. S185827, presented a dilemma for the California Supreme Court. If it followed its holding in Murphy v. Kenneth Cole Productions, Inc. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 1094, employers that successfully defended against suits for meal-and-rest-break violations under Labor Code Section 226.7 could obtain attorney fees under Section 218.5. This wou...

To continue reading, please subscribe.
For only $95 a month (the price of 2 article purchases)
Receive unlimited article access and full access to our archives,
Daily Appellate Report, award winning columns, and our
Verdicts and Settlements.
Or
$795 for an entire year!

Or access this article for $45
(Purchase provides 7-day access to this article. Printing, posting or downloading is not allowed.)

Already a subscriber?

Enewsletter Sign-up