Leonard H. Sansanowicz – Page 3 – Employee Rights Law Firm

The FAAAA Does Not Preempt AB 2257, “ABC” Test

October 27, 2022November 19, 2020 by Leonard H. Sansanowicz

People v. Super. Ct., 57 Cal.App.5th 619 (Nov. 19, 2020) The Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994 (“FAAAA”) preempts state laws “related to a price, route, or service of any motor carrier…with respect to the transportation of property.”[i] However, worker-classification laws that are generally applicable and that do not prohibit the use of independent… Continue Reading The FAAAA Does Not Preempt AB 2257, “ABC” Test

An Employer Has the Burden of Proving Its Jurisdictional Allegations for CAFA Removal Are Reasonable.

October 27, 2022November 13, 2020 by Leonard H. Sansanowicz

Harris v. KM Indus., Inc., 980 F.3d 694 (9th Cir. Nov. 13, 2020) Plaintiff filed a wage and hour class action against Defendant in state court, including for meal and rest breaks. Defendant removed the action to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (“CAFA”), which requires a removing defendant to allege… Continue Reading An Employer Has the Burden of Proving Its Jurisdictional Allegations for CAFA Removal Are Reasonable.

CCP § 1033 Does Not Apply Where Wage Claim Not Brought in Bad Faith.

October 27, 2022November 9, 2020 by Leonard H. Sansanowicz

Cruz v. Fusion Buffet, Inc., 57 Cal.App.5th 221 (Nov. 9, 2020) Plaintiff filed a wage and hour lawsuit against her former employer and two alleged alter ego individuals, alleging the individuals commingled assets and failed to maintain corporate formalities. After nearly 18 months of litigation, the trial court held a three-day bench trial and found… Continue Reading CCP § 1033 Does Not Apply Where Wage Claim Not Brought in Bad Faith.

Default Judgment Not Vacated Where Defendants Willfully Absented Themselves.

October 27, 2022October 20, 2020 by Leonard H. Sansanowicz

Kramer v. Traditional Escrow, Inc., 56 Cal.App.5th 13 (Oct. 20, 2020) Plaintiff filed a wage and hour lawsuit against her former employer and its alleged alter ego, an individual. After filing an answer, Defendants’ counsel withdrew and Defendants chose not to participate further, making themselves unreachable and failing to update their contact information with the… Continue Reading Default Judgment Not Vacated Where Defendants Willfully Absented Themselves.