Spiro Kamar et al v. Radio Shack Corporation et al
Filing
124
MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge A. Howard Matz. Before the Court is Defendant RadioShack Corporation's Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's Interpretation of California's Reporting Time Pay Regulation. Because a depublished case does not constitute intervening new authority, the Court DENIES Defendant's motion for reconsideration. (kbr)
<![CDATA[
O
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.
CV 07-02252 AHM (AJWx)
Title
SPIRO KAMAR, et al. v. RADIOSHACK CORPORATION, et al.
Present: The
Honorable
Date
May 30, 2012
A. HOWARD MATZ, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Stephen Montes
Not Reported
Deputy Clerk
Court Reporter / Recorder
Attorneys NOT Present for Plaintiffs:
Proceedings:
Tape No.
Attorneys NOT Present for Defendants:
IN CHAMBERS (No Proceedings Held)
Before the Court is Defendant RadioShack Corporation’s Motion for
Reconsideration of the Court’s Interpretation of California’s Reporting Time Pay
Regulation. Defendant argues that Aleman v. AirTouch Cellular, 134 Cal.Rptr.3d 643
(2011) (“Aleman I”), a decision by the California Court of Appeal, Second District,
constitutes an intervening change in law that warrants reconsideration of the order that
this Court issued on December 20, 2011. In Aleman I, the Court of Appeal held, inter
alia, that employees who attend meetings scheduled at least four days in advance are not
entitled to reporting time pay unless the “employee is not furnished with half of his or her
scheduled day’s work.” Id. at 653. One day before Aleman I was issued, this Court held,
based on a substantially similar set of facts, that employees are entitled to reporting time
pay when they attend meetings on days they are not otherwise required to work, even if
the meetings are “scheduled” in advance. (Dkt. 114, p. 7.)
It appears that this Court’s ruling is in direct conflict with the Court of Appeal’s
ruling in Aleman I. Since Defendant filed this motion, however, Aleman I has been
depublished. See Aleman v. AirTouch Cellular, 139 Cal.Rptr.3d 2 (2012) (“Aleman II”).
Both parties in Aleman I filed a petition for review with the California Supreme Court.
The California Supreme Court denied the plaintiff’s petition for review on the reporting
time pay issue but granted the defendant’s petition for review on the Court of Appeal’s
other holdings. Aleman II, 139 Cal.Rptr.3d at 2 . Because petition for review was
granted for one party, the Court of Appeal’s decision in Aleman I has since been
automatically depublished. See Cal.Rules of Court, Rule 8.1105(e).
Under California Rules of Court, absent certain exceptions, “an opinion of a
California Court of Appeal or superior court appellate division that is not certified for
CV-90 (06/04)
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Page 1 of 2
O
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.
CV 07-02252 AHM (AJWx)
Date
Title
May 30, 2012
SPIRO KAMAR, et al. v. RADIOSHACK CORPORATION, et al.
publication or ordered published must not be cited or relied on by a court or a party in
any other action.” See Cal.Rules of Court, Rule 8.1115(a). Because a depublished case
does not constitute intervening new authority, the Court DENIES Defendant’s motion for
reconsideration.1
:
Initials of Preparer
1
SMO
Dkt. 117.
CV-90 (06/04)
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Page 2 of 2
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
