Cases
Search U.S. court opinions (CourtListener / Free Law Project), or resolve a reporter citation to its case via the Caselaw Access Project. Facts only — name, court, date, status, citation count. Never a holding-summary.
7 opinions for “Aldapa v. Fowler Packing Company Inc.”
Aldapa v. Fowler Packing Co.public domain
ORDER PARTIALLY GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL ECF NO. 28 ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER ECF NO. 29 STANLEY A. BOONE, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE On October 6, 2015, Plaintiffs Beatriz Alda-pa and Elmer Avalos (“Plaintiffs”) filed a motion to compel. (ECF No. 28.) On October 7, 2015, Defendants Fowler Packing Comp
Fowler Packing Company, Inc. v. David Lanierpublic domain
FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FOWLER PACKING COMPANY, INC.; No. 16-16236 GERAWAN FARMING, INC., Plaintiffs-Appellants, D.C. No. 1:16-cv-00106- v. DAD-SAB DAVID M. LANIER, in his official capacity as Secretary of the OPINION California Labor and Workforce Development Agency; CHRISTINE BAKER, in her o
Fowler Packing Company, Inc. v. David Lanierpublic domain
OPINION GOULD, Circuit Judge: In response to recent state appellate court decisions that exposed employers to significant and unexpected minimum wage liability, California passed Assembly Bill 1513 (AB 1513). This law created a “safe harbor” that gave employers an affirmative defense against the new claims so long as the employer made back payments under
E-NUMERATE SOLUTIONS, INC. v. United Statespublic domain
In the United States Court of Federal Claims No. 19-859C (Filed: February 26, 2026) ) E-NUMERATE SOLUTIONS, INC., ) et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) )
HOCH, J. *16This case involves the delicate balancing of open government principles enshrined in the California Public Records Act (Public Records Act) ( Gov. Code, § 6250 et seq. )1 and the need for confidentiality in the deliberative process of drafting legislation as safeguarded by the deliberative process privileg
Troester v. Starbucks Corp.public domain
CORMAC J. CARNEY, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Douglas Troester brings this putative wage-and-hour class action against Defendant Starbucks Corporation ("Starbucks"), alleging claims for (1) failure to pay minimum and overtime wages, (2) failure to provide accurate written wage statements, (3) failure to timely pay all final wages, and (4) unfair competition. (Dkt. 1-1 [Com
Filed 1/8/18 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ---- LABOR AND WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT AGENCY, Petitioner, C083180 v. (Super. Ct. No. 34201680002317)