The blog Wage Law has a nice report on the argument, compiled by Michael Walsh from notes provided to him by several attorneys who attended. The post concludes with a round-up of outcome predictions. The common theme is that everyone seems to expect a split decision. Try as we might to be objective, the defense attorneys all predict a win for the employer, while the plaintiffs' attorneys expect the employee to emerge victorious. My own lengthy report on the argument is at this link.
CONTACT ME
Kimberly A. Kralowec
The Kralowec Law Group
188 The Embarcadero,
Suite 800
San Francisco, CA 94105
Tel: (415) 546-6800
Fax: (415) 546-6801
Web: www.kraloweclaw.com
Email: uclpractitioner@gmail.com
About
May 2013
Categories
- Appellate practice
- Attorneys’ fees (CCP §1021.5)
- Class Action "Fairness" Act
- Class actions - arbitration
- Class actions - certification
- Class actions - choice of law
- Class actions - discovery
- Class actions - general
- Class actions - settlements
- Class actions - Supreme Court
- General
- Law blogging
- MCLE programs
- News reports and practice articles
- Prop. 64 - appellate briefs
- Prop. 64 - appellate decisions
- Prop. 64 - general
- Prop. 64 - injury in fact
- Prop. 64 - oral arguments
- Prop. 64 - pending appeals
- Prop. 64 - Supreme Court
- Prop. 64 - trial court orders
- Schubert Jonckheer Kolbe & Kralowec LLP
- Supreme Court and Court of Appeal arguments
- The CLRA
- The Furth Firm LLP
- UCL - "fraudulent" prong
- UCL - "unfair" prong
- UCL - "unlawful" prong
- UCL - arbitration
- UCL - class certification
- UCL - competitor actions
- UCL - federal decisions
- UCL - injunctive relief
- UCL - legislative activity
- UCL - preemption
- UCL - public prosecutor actions
- UCL - remedies in general
- UCL - restitution
- UCL - Supreme Court
ARCHIVES
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
- December 2005
- November 2005
- October 2005
- September 2005
- August 2005
- July 2005
- June 2005
- Main Archives Page
« "Calif. High Court Grapples With Limitations Period in Meal-Pay Law" | Main | Recent Eleventh Circuit CAFA decision: Main Drug, Inc. v. Aetna U.S. Healthcare, Inc. and »
Friday, March 09, 2007
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8345172b069e200d835216ebb69e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference More on the Murphy v. Kenneth Cole oral argument:
Comments
Verify your Comment
Previewing your Comment
This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment
As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.
Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.
Brinker Links
- Plaintiffs' counsel in Brinker receive CLAY Awards (March 2013)
- Supreme Court depublishes third post-Brinker opinion (January 2013)
- Supreme Court depublishes post-Brinker opinions (December 2012)
- "Brinker v. Superior Court: Takeaways for California Workers" by Kimberly Kralowec (July 2012)
- Opinion in Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court, 53 Cal.4th 1004 (2012)
- Docket in Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court
- Briefs in Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court
- Oral argument in Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court (Nov. 8, 2011)
The UCL
Class Actions
The CLRA
California Appellate Practice Links
- Cal. Rules of Court, Title Eight (Appellate Rules)
- New Appellate Opinions
- 2013 Supreme Court Conference Calendar
- Supreme Court Notices of Forthcoming Filings
- Supreme Court Notices of Oral Argument
- Supreme Court Internal Operating Procedures
- Map of California Appellate Districts
- Successful Depublication Requests
- California Supreme Court Watch (Greines, Martin, Stein & Richland LLP)
- California Appellate Courts Case Information
LAW BLOG DIRECTORIES
- Alltop.com law page
- Blawg Directory (ABA Journal)
- Blawg Directory: California (ABA Journal)
- Blawg Republic
- Blawg Search (Justia)
- Blawg.org
- Blogged.com Law Blog Directory
- Blogs & Podcasts (FindLaw)
- Law Professor Blogs (Professor Paul L. Caron)
- LawLink Blog Directory
- LexMonitor
- myHq blawgs (Blawg Review)
- Taxonomy of Legal Blogs (Ian Best)
- The Law List (Kevin O'Keefe)
- USLaw Blog Directory
Disclaimer
Nothing in this blog constitutes legal advice. If you need legal advice, consult an attorney in your jurisdiction. To read this blog's complete disclaimer, click here.
The UCL Practitioner
© 2003-2013
by Kimberly A. Kralowec
All rights reserved.
Header design by Webmotion
Photos by Jack Gescheidt
Powered by TypePad
Follow @uclpractitioner
I'm going out on a limb and predicting a 7-0 decision one way or the other. It sure seems like they have all their wage/hour, employment and class action decisions be unanimous since Corrigan joined the court (e.g., Smith v. Superior Court, Pioneer Electronics, Friends case, the at-will case).
Posted by: TommyK | Monday, March 12, 2007 at 06:06 PM
Thanks, Tommy. One possibility that did occur to me was that Chief Justice George might convince the panel that the statutory language is unambiguous, that resort to legislative history materials is therefore unnecessary, and that the payment is a wage, not a penalty. His questioning was not inconsistent with such an outcome. And, statistically speaking, Chief Justice George is in the majority far more often than not.
Posted by: Kimberly A. Kralowec | Monday, March 12, 2007 at 06:55 PM