In a suit alleging that a nonresident manufacturer's pharmaceutical drug

 

Overview

HOLDINGS: [1]-In a suit alleging that a nonresident manufacturer's pharmaceutical drug had injured both resident and nonresident consumers, California did not have general jurisdiction because the manufacturer's sales and research activities in California did not establish that the manufacturer was essentially at home in the state, absent evidence that it was incorporated in California or had its principal place of business or headquarters in California; [2]-By showing that the manufacturer sold large quantities of the drug in California and had extensive business activities in California, the nonresident consumers met their burden to establish specific jurisdiction based on the manufacturer's contacts with California related to the claims; [3]-The exercise of jurisdiction under California's long-arm statute, Code Civ. Proc., § 410.10, was not unreasonable or unduly burdensome.

Outcome

A conflict lawyer Orange County CA represents plaintiffs and defendants in civil lawsuits. They manage all phases of the litigation from the investigation, pleadings, pre-trial, trial, settlement, and appeal processes. Order affirmed.

 

Procedural Posture

Plaintiff employee sued defendant employer, alleging violations of meal and rest break labor laws and seeking class certification under a class definition that was significantly narrowed from a prior suit by a different employee, in which class certification was denied. The Superior Court of San Francisco, California, dismissed the class allegations and denied the motion for class certification under Code Civ. Proc., § 382. The employee appealed.

Overview

In the prior suit, the class was defined as all of the employer's hourly store employees in California at any time. The current suit defined the putative class as hourly employees during a specified period for whom records depicted a meal period not taken due to either a single-employee shift or in-store training. The reviewing court held that issue preclusion did not bar the current request for class certification because the proposed class did not involve the same liability issues implicated in the prior suit. The theory in the current case was that two circumstances—single employee on duty or providing training—did not come within the "nature of the work" exception set forth in Industrial Welfare Commission wage order No. 4-2001, Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 11040, subd. 11(A), so as to permit an "on-duty" meal period. Unlike the prior suit, the current suit was not concerned with whether a given employee signed a meal period waiver, and the trial court could identify the class from the employer's records and determine liability as a matter of law. The proposed class on its face attempted to correct flaws identified in the prior lawsuit resulting in denial of certification.

Outcome

The judgment was reversed.