Yesterday, the Supreme Court granted review in Faulkinbury v. Boyd & Associates, no. S184995. Briefing is deferred pending resolution of Brinker.
According to the docket, five depublication requests were filed. Both the review petition and at least two of the depublication requests pointed out the decision's implicit assumption that meal periods need only be "offered" to workers. That assumption led the Court of Appeal to affirm the trial court's order denying class certification of the meal period claim.
Here is my short original post on the Court of Appeal opinion, Faulkinbury v. Boyd & Associates, Inc., 185 Cal.App.4th 1363 (2010), handed down in June. Under Rule of Court 8.1105(e)(1), the opinion is no longer citable precedent.