CONTACT ME


  • Kimberly A. Kralowec
    The Kralowec Law Group
    180 Montgomery Street,
    Suite 2000
    San Francisco, CA 94104
    Tel: (415) 546-6800
    Fax: (415) 546-6801
    Web: www.kraloweclaw.com
    Email: uclpractitioner@gmail.com

December 2014

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31      

« Petition for review filed in Johnson collateral estoppel case | Main | "2nd Circuit: Plaintiffs in Credit Card Antitrust Case Cannot Be Compelled to Arbitrate" »

Thursday, November 06, 2008

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8345172b069e2010535de825b970c

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference New Ninth Circuit decision on the UCL's extraterritorial operation: Sullivan v. Oracle Corp.:

Comments

TommyK

So does it, or does it not, overrule Judge Patel's decision on extraterritorial application of 17200 in the In Re Wells Fargo Overtime case? She specifically found that conduct emanated from California, and this case did not make the point clear. The case did state that "The employer, Oracle, has its headquarters and
principal place of business in California; the decision to classify Plaintiffs as teachers and to deny them overtime pay was
made in California; and the work in question was performed in California." So there is an argument that they were implicitly setting forth a blanket rule. It would have been better for them to have taken the issue on in more detail.

Kimberly A. Kralowec

The Ninth Circuit's holding on the FLSA claim (and the UCL "unlawful" prong claim stemming from that violation) was specifically limited to work performed outside California. Please post the citation for the ruling by Judge Patel.

TommyK

The Patel decision is In Wells Fargo Home Mortg. Overtime Pay Litig., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60551(N.D. Cal. Aug. 13 2007). She held that WFHM could be held liable for misclassification decisions that took place outside California even though the management was in Iowa because the management allegedly received advice from an in-house counsel in California not to reclassify employees as non-exempt.

If Oracle actually stands for the proposition that the making of the decision to classify employees as exempt in California is insufficient to allow extraterritorial application of 17200 to employees out of state, that would seem to conflict with this case. Do you disagree?

Kimberly A. Kralowec

I haven't read Judge Patel's decision, but based on your summary, it doesn't sound like a conflict to me. That part of the Oracle opinion related only to a UCL "unlawful" prong claim based on an alleged violation of the federal FLSA. It doesn't sound like that's what Judge Patel's case involved.

By the way, TommyK, you are a relatively frequent commenter; why not identify yourself?

TommyK

I prefer limited anonymity. If I run into you in court sometime, I'll introduce myself. Keep on blogging!

Kimberly A. Kralowec

I have a pretty good idea of who you are but I won't out you on my blog. I put myself out there publicly every day so I have a little trouble understanding those who are unwilling or reluctant to do the same. I look forward to meeting you in court someday.

The comments to this entry are closed.

2014 Supreme Court Calendar


Research


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
    © 2003-2014
    by Kimberly A. Kralowec
    All rights reserved.


  • Enter your email address:

    Delivered by FeedBurner




  • Header design by Webmotion
    Photos by Jack Gescheidt
    Powered by TypePad