• Enter your email address:

August 2021

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        

« Ninth Circuit memdispo partially reverses denial of class certification: Sepulveda v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. | Main | "SF Weekly penalty could rise to $15.6 million" »

Wednesday, May 07, 2008


michael walsh

This will get appealed to the same panel that gave us McCoy v. Superior Court (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 225, which makes this case an interesting vehicle for expansion of the law. In McCoy, the court ruled that the statute for section 203 penalties that do not include claims for the underlying wages was one year. And that this ruling meant that the court did not need to address the claim that the statute was four years under the plaintiff's alternate theory uf unfair competition.

Paul Esparza

I was terminated back in November of 2007 for getting ill from Vertigo. The Construction Company refused my unemployment and after several months of appears I won my case. Now pursuing my sign on bonus this company is still refusing to pay my sign on bonus and has asked for three continuous. Where dose section labor code 203 work in my case work which is apparent for the victim. I am now broke and unable to afford an attorney to assist me. Where do I go for attorney representation?
Paul Esparza (626) 330-3557

The comments to this entry are closed.

2021 Supreme Court Calendar



  • Nothing in this blog constitutes legal advice or a solicitation for business. If you need legal advice, consult an attorney in your jurisdiction. To read this blog's complete disclaimer, click here.

  • The UCL Practitioner
    © 2003-2020
    by Kimberly A. Kralowec
    All rights reserved.

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

  • StatCounter