January 2024

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      

« New class certification decision: Soderstedt v. CBIZ Southern California, LLC | Main | Recent UCL "fraudulent" prong decision: Hill v. Roll Int'l Corp. »

Monday, July 11, 2011



What do you think is meant by "where the employee was paid"? Where they received their paycheck? What if the check was direct deposit? I would think that almost anyone working outside California would receive their check outside California, unless it was direct deposited into an account in California. I'm curious for your take.

Kimberly A. Kralowec

These were the Court's exact words:

Thus, the UCL might conceivably apply to plaintiffs’ claims if their wages were paid (or underpaid) in California, but the stipulated facts do not speak to the location of payment. The parties invite us to speculate about the place of payment as a basis for holding the UCL does, or does not, apply. We decline to do so.
Slip op. at 22.

I haven't thought about your question and don't have an opinion on it. The most salient point to be drawn from Sullivan is that the Supreme Court had no problem with the concept of a UCL "unlawful" prong claim predicated on FLSA violations, even if some of the work was performed outside California.

The comments to this entry are closed.

2023 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
    © 2003-2022
    by Kimberly A. Kralowec
    All rights reserved.

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

  • StatCounter