1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. Cal.5th
  4. 5 Cal.5th
  5. 5 Cal.5th 829 (2018)
 

TROESTER v. STARBUCKS CORP.

No. S234969.

5 Cal.5th 829 (2018)

DOUGLAS TROESTER, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. STARBUCKS CORPORATION, Defendant and Respondent.

Supreme Court of California.

July 26, 2018.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Setareh Law Group, Shaun Setareh , Thomas Segal , H. Scott Leviant ; The Spivak Law Firm, David Spivak ; Law Offices of Louis Benowitz, Louis Benowitz ; Marlin & Saltzman and Stanley D. Saltzman for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Anna Kirsch and Hina Shah for Women's Employment Rights Clinic of Golden Gate University School of Law, Bet Tzedek, Centro Legal de la Raza, National Employment Law Project and Legal Aid at Work as Amici Curiae on behalf of Plaintiff and Appellant.

The Kralowec Law Group, Kimberly A. Kralowec ; Kingsley & Kingsley and Ari J. Stiller for Consumer Attorneys of California and California Employment Lawyers Association as Amici Curiae on behalf of Plaintiff and Appellant.

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, Rex S. Heinke , Gregory W. Knopp , Mark R. Curiel and Jonathan P. Slowik for Defendant and Respondent.

Sidley Austin, David R. Carpenter and Sonia A. Vucetic for California Retailers Association as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Respondent.

Horvitz & Levy, Robert H. Wright , Felix Shafir and Lacey L. Esudillo for Association of Southern California Defense Counsel as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Respondent.

Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton, Karin Dougan Vogel , Daniel De La Cruz , Richard J. Simmons and Jason W. Kearnaghan for Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Respondent.

Mitchell, Silberberg & Knupp, Emma Luevano and Justine Lazarus for Employers Group and California Employment Law Council Amici Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Respondent.

OPINION

Upon a request by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.548), we agreed to answer the following question: Does the federal Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938's (29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq.) de minimis doctrine, as stated in Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co.

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