Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Mendoza v. Nordstrom, Inc.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

August 3, 2017

Christopher Mendoza, an individual, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Nordstrom, Inc., a Washington Corporation authorized to do business in the State of California, Defendant-Appellee. and Meagan Gordon, Plaintiff-Intervenor, Christopher Mendoza, an individual, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, and Meagan Gordon, Plaintiff-Intervenor-Appellant,
v.
Nordstrom, Inc., a Washington Corporation authorized to do business in the State of California, Defendant-Appellee.

          Argued December 12, 2014

          Resubmitted June 30, 2017 Pasadena, California

         Appeals from the United States District Court for the Central District of California D.C. No. 8:10-cv-00109-CJC-MLG Cormac J. Carney, District Judge, Presiding

          André E. Jardini (argued) and K.L. Myles, Knapp Petersen & Clarke, Glendale, California, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

          R. Craig Clark (argued) and James M. Treglio, Clark Law Firm, San Diego, California; David R. Markham, The Markham Law Firm, San Diego, California; for Plaintiff-Intervenor-Appellant.

          Julie A. Dunne (argued), Dawn Fonseca, and Joshua D. Levine, Littler Mendelson P.C, San Diego, California, for Defendant-Appellee.

          Before: Susan P. Graber, Ronald M. Gould, and Consuelo M. Callahan, Circuit Judges.

         SUMMARY[*]

         California Labor Law

         The panel affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiffs' California Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 ("PAGA") claims against Nordstrom, Inc. alleging violations of California's "day of rest" law.

         Cal. Lab. Code § 551 grants employees a right to one "day's rest" in seven. Cal. Lab. Code § 552 provides that no employer "shall cause his employees to work more than six days in seven."

         In an earlier order, the panel certified three questions of state law to the California Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court accepted certification and answered the questions, Mendoza v. Nordstrom, Inc., 393 P.3d 375 (Cal. 2017).

         The panel held that the stipulated facts demonstrated that neither plaintiff worked more than six consecutive days in any one Nordstrom work week, and each of their individual claims under California Labor Code sections 551 and 552 failed. The panel rejected plaintiffs' claim that the case must be remanded to permit a new PAGA representative who did suffer violations of sections 551 and 552 to "step forward" and continue litigating the dispute.

          OPINION

          GRABER, ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.