1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. Cal.App.4th
  4. 174 Cal.App.4th
  5. 174 Cal.App.4th 1067 (2009)
 

HARO v. CITY OF ROSEMEAD

No. B210629.

174 Cal.App.4th 1067 (2009)

RANDY HARO et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. CITY OF ROSEMEAD, Defendant and Respondent.

Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division Eight.

June 9, 2009.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Law Offices of Thomas W. Falvey and Jon D. Henderson for Plaintiffs and Appellants.

Garcia Calderon Ruiz, Bonifacio B. Garcia, Albert A. Erkel, Jr., Chaka C. Okadigbo; Burke, Williams & Sorensen and Daphne M. Anneet for Defendant and Respondent.

OPINION

FLIER, J.—

Appellants Randy Haro and Robert Ballin filed an action against respondent City of Rosemead, alleging in their complaint that this "is a collective action brought under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), seeking compensation for all hours worked." Title 29 United States Code section 216 is part of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA; 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq.). The trial court denied appellants' motion to certify as...

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