Request a Demo Log In
Stoetzl v. Department of Human Resources, No. S244751, 2019 BL 258994, 2019 CA Lexis 4937 (Cal. July 01, 2019), Court Opinion
XVUM8AT0000N
OPINIONS
Stoetzl v. Department of Human Resources
2019 BL 258994
2019 Cal. LEXIS 4937
S244751

Search

Search over:

No Matches Found

Search term(s) not found.

Docket Entries Since Last Update
NOTE: This court's RSS feed does not list MOTION entries, so Bloomberg Law cannot detect them and thus they will not be listed here. However, motions will be included if you update the docket.

Copy with Citation

Copy the text below to paste into your document.

Include Parallel Citations
Link citations to Bloomberg Law
Court Opinions
S244751
2019 BL 258994

Majority Opinion >


SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA


KURT STOETZL v. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES.


S244751

July 1, 2019, Opinion Filed

First Appellate District, Division 4, No. A142832.



Majority Opinion by Chin, J. —joined by Cantil-Sakauye, C. J., Corrigan, Kruger, and Groban, JJ. Concurring and Dissenting Opinion by Liu, J. —joined by Cuéllar, J.

Opinion filed: Affirmed in part, reversed in part.

We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeal insofar as it rejected the claims of the represented plaintiffs.

We reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeal insofar as it allowed the unrepresented plaintiffs' minimum wage claims to proceed.

We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeal insofar as it allowed the unrepresented plaintiffs' breach of contract claims to proceed, but we conclude that those claims should be limited to seeking unpaid overtime compensation based on the FLSA's definition of compensable work time, not based on the broader definition that appears in Wage Order No. 4.

We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeal insofar as it rejected the unrepresented plaintiffs' claims under Labor Code sections 222 and 223 .

We remand the case to the Court of Appeal with instructions to remand to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. During such proceedings, defendants can raise any defenses that the trial court did not reach in its previous consideration of the case.

Majority Opinion by Chin, J.

—joined by Cantil-Sakauye, C. J., Corrigan, Kruger, and Groban, JJ.

Concurring and Dissenting Opinion by Liu, J.

—joined by Cuéllar, J.

Jump To
Please enter a valid page number
Pagination
Show Pagination
 

back to top

Enter a Client Matter

Your firm optionally allows a client matter to be selected while you are using Bloomberg Law. Please contact your administrator if you have any questions. Please select from a recently used Client Matter or enter a Client Matter manually.
RECENTLY USED
CLIENT MATTER
Please contact your administrator if you have questions about client matter.
Cancel Submit
Unrecognized Client Matter

Client Matter   does not currently exist in Bloomberg Law. Would you like to add this client matter to the system?
Bloomberg Industry Group
About Us Contact Us
Other Products
Big Law Business Professional Learning BNA
Help Topics
Getting Started BCite Citator Smart Code Points of Law Browse All Help Topics
24/7 BLAW® Help Desk
888.560.2529
help@bloomberglaw.com
0.1465.1
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Copyright Accessibility
© 2022 The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. All Rights Reserved.