Civil Litigation,
Labor/Employment,
California Supreme Court
Sep. 12, 2018
Unaccounted time: Reading the tea leaves of Troester
It is the nature of the analysis supplied by Troester that suggests more is yet to be said about the implications of this principle and how far-reaching the decision may ultimately prove to be.
H. Scott Leviant
Senior Counsel
Moon & Yang, APC
Email: scott.leviant@moonyanglaw.com
USC Law School; Los Angeles CA
Scott emphasizes class action litigation and appellate advocacy in his legal practice. He is the editor-in-chief and primary author of "The Complex Litigator," a weblog about complex litigation and class actions issues in California (www.thecomplexlitigator.com).
Lilit Ter-Astvatsatryan
Associate
Moon Law Group PC
Phone: (213) 232-3128
Email: lilit@moonlawgroup.com
UC Hastings COL; San Francisco CA
Lilit emphasizes class action litigation in her legal practice.
With any California Supreme Court decisions of widespread reach, the question is not what it holds with respect to the case before it, but what it portends beyond the confines of the case from whence it arose. Case in point, the recent decision of Troester v. Starbucks Corp., 5 Cal. 5th 829 (2018), as mod., reh. den. (Aug. 29, 2018), in which the Supreme Court held that California employers cannot use the federal...
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?
Sign In