Labor/Employment,
California Supreme Court,
Appellate Practice
Jul. 14, 2017
PAGA prevails; Takings doctrine gets trickier
A unanimous California Supreme Court deems discovery of fellow employee contact information in PAGA claims permissible, as lead counsel Glenn Danas explains (Capstone Law APC); and Bryan Wenter (Miller Starr Regalia) discusses how SCOTUS passed up a perfect opportunity this term to clarify Takings law, and instead rendered it even more complex
Glenn A. Danas
Clarkson Law Firm P.C.Employment; Class Action Litigation; Appellate Advocacy
Phone: (213) 788-4050
Email: gdanas@clarksonlawfirm.com
Emory Univ SOL; Atlanta GA
Glenn focuses on appeals and major motions, and has substantial experience litigating consumer and employment class actions. Mr. Danas was named one of the Top 100 Attorneys in California in 2017 by the Daily Journal, and received a California Lawyer Attorney of the Year (CLAY) award in 2015 for his work on Iskanian
Bryan W. Wenter
Shareholder, Miller Starr Regalia
Email: bryan.wenter@msrlegal.com
Bryan is a member of the firm's Land Use Department. His practice centers on land use and local government law, with a particular focus on obtaining and defending land use entitlements for a wide range of development projects, including in-fill, mixed-use, residential, retail/commercial, and industrial.
This week's show looks at a long-awaited ruling from the California Supreme Court, in which the court unanimously held for a plaintiff seeking the contact information of his fellow employees, as part of a meal- and rest-break PAGA action. Glenn Danas, who argued the case before the state's high court, joins us to chat about the various arguments involved, over the disputed burden to the defendant, the privacy rights of the fellow employees, and how the foundational principles of both discovery rules generally and the Private Attorney General Act specifically helped carry the day for his client.
Then, Brian Wenter will discuss the U.S. Supreme Court's latest take on the Takings Doctrine, in Murr v. Wisconsin, decided this past term. He says the Court had an ideal chance to clarify a fairly abstruse doctrine, but ended up making it even more complicated.
Don't forget listeners can get CLE credit for tuning in; find a link to the affiliated CLE test below.
Brian Cardile
brian_cardile@dailyjournal.com
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390
Send a letter to the editor:
Email: letters@dailyjournal.com