1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. Cal.Rptr.3d
  4. 3 Cal.Rptr.3d
  5. 3 Cal.Rptr.3d 365 (2003)
 

ADAMS v. PACIFIC BELL DIRECTORY

No. G029343.

3 Cal.Rptr.3d 365 (2003)

111 Cal.App.4th 93

Leah ADAMS et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. PACIFIC BELL DIRECTORY, Defendant and Respondent.

Court of Appeals of California, Fourth District, Division Three.

August 11, 2003.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

MacAuley & Smart and Jack Smart, Laguna Hills, for Plaintiffs and Appellants.

Ballard, Rosenberg, Golper & Savitt and Jeffrey P. Fuchsman, Universal Gity, for Defendant and Respondent.

OPINION

RYLAARSDAM, Acting P.J.

Plaintiffs, 42 employees and former employees of defendant Pacific Bell Directory (employer), sued the latter, claiming its practice of debiting employees' commissions is unlawful under Labor Code section 221 and Business and Professions Code section 17200, although it is expressly permitted under a collective bargaining agreement between the parties. The case has been a procedural merry-go-round, if not a procedural roller...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases