The Graves Firm has an exceptional record of success before the Courts of Appeal. For example, California law allows a litigant in a trial court to bring a petition for a “writ” which is an order requiring a trial court to do something or refrain from doing something. Writ petitions are generally within the discretion of the Courts of Appeal and overall, the Courts of Appeal deny these petitions without further consideration between 90 and 95% of the time. Over the last four years, the Graves Firm has enjoyed a success rate of approximately 80% with these kinds of petitions.
While most employment class actions can be settled in a way that is favorable to employees, some cases require extended litigation. To get the best possible result, it is important to have counsel who know how to do more than settle quickly. Some cases call for extended litigation. When employees score important victories in court, it is common for a corporate employer to appeal a ruling against them. When that happens, our attorneys are equipped to continue defending our clients’ interests in California’s Courts of Appeal.
When you choose a law firm, it is important to have a team with the understanding and experience to pursue justice on your behalf not only at trial, but on appeal if necessary. This is important because a law firm that is not equipped to fight on the appellate level may feel pressured to settle too soon and for too little. The Graves Firm is proud of our success not only in recovering compensation for our own clients, but in shaping the law to better protect all California workers.
In Turrieta, the Graves Firm achieved one of the largest settlements ever reached in a case brought exclusively under the California Private Attorney General Act (“PAGA”). Two non-parties, who were plaintiffs asserting PAGA claims against Lyft in other cases, sought to object to the settlement.
Following the trial court's determination that non-parties were not entitled to object to a PAGA settlement, intervene in the case, or move to vacate the judgment approving the settlement, the non-parties appealed. After briefing and argument by Graves Firm attorneys, the Court of Appeal upheld the trial court judgment. The California Supreme Court has accepted review of this matter. See Case No. S271721.
In Maynard, the Graves firm represents the Plaintiff in a lawsuit that challenges the tax credit practice of treating its workers as independent contractors. The trial court ordered the plaintiff to provide information regarding privileged communications in a way that we believed was improper. The Graves Firm was successful in bringing a petition for a writ of mandate and obtaining a reversal of the trial court’s order.
In Lowe's, a number of cases against Lowe's were coordinated along with the case brought by Ann Leenay. The trial court granted the defendant's motion to stay all of the coordinated cases, pending resolution of individual arbitrations brought by claimants who were not party to any of the coordinated cases.
Plaintiff Leenay filed a writ petition contending that a stay was inappropriate because: 1) a stay pending any and all Labor Code arbitrations brought against Lowe's—a large national retailer—was, in effect, a perpetual stay that would cause injustice in PAGA claims; and 2) Leenay's matter, specifically, had no overlapping issues with any of the currently pending arbitrations against Lowe's.
The California Court of Appeal, Fourth District Division Two, issued an Order to Show Cause why relief should not be granted. The Court of Appeal has Issued a tentative ruling adopting the positions advanced by the Graves Firm and the parties expected final ruling from the court soon.
In Bamossy v. Bloomingdale's, Case No. 30-2017-00933266 in the Orange County Superior Court, the defendant, Bloomingdale's, Inc., moved to compel arbitration of Plaintiff's Private Attorney General claims seeking to recover penalties on behalf of the State of California for Bloomingdale's failure to 1) reimburse its sales employees for the use of their personal cellular telephones for work; and 2) pay its sales employees for time worked away from the store and off the clock.
The trial court struck Plaintiff's claims for violation of Labor Code Sections 201 and 202, finding that the PAGA did not provide a remedy for violation of these sections. The Court of Appeal issued an alternative writ rejecting the trial court's decision and ordering the trial court to permit amendment of the complaint to seek penalties under Labor Code Section 2699(f) for violation of Sections 201 and 202.
In George v. Manheim, Case No. 16-56594 in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal, Plaintiff, an auctioneer, filed an action against his employer alleging the employer illegally terminated him on the basis of his age. The employer argued that auctioneers such as the Plaintiff were independent contractors, not employees entitled to protections against age discrimination. The District Court decided to stay the case pending the decision in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court, which evaluated the question of the appropriate test for distinguishing whether a worker is an employee or an independent contractor. Defendant appealed the order staying the case; and the Ninth Circuit dismissed the appeal on the motion of the Plaintiff.
In Baumann, The Graves Firm represented amicus curiae in successfully arguing that federal courts may not exercise original jurisdiction over Private Attorney General actions under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005.
We invite you to learn more about our attorneys, our services, and our track record, and to contact The Graves Firm to schedule a consultation.
© 2024 The Graves Firm, A Professional Corporation|Legal Disclaimer|Privacy Policy
Law Firm Website Design by The Modern Firm
