Grodensky

Grodensky v. Artichoke Joe's Casino

Good Law
171 Cal. App. 4th 1399·2009 Cal. App. LEXIS 324·91 Cal. Rptr. 3d 732
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 11, 2009A119035, A119036California22,539 words

Opinion

Opinion

Artichoke Joe's Casino (Artichoke Joe's or the casino) implemented a mandatory tip pooling policy for the dealers. A dealer, Harvey Grodensky, filed a class action and alleged claims for conversion and violating Labor Code sections 351 and 1194. He also claimed in his representative capacity that the casino had violated the unfair competition law (UCL). After a bench trial, the trial court found that a mandatory tip pool was legal. However, it determined the shift managers were agents of the casino and therefore the casino violated Labor Code section 351 by distributing a portion of the tip money to the shift managers. The court also found that this violation of the Labor Code supported Grodensky's UCL claim. The court ordered restitution for the amount of tip money given to the shift managers and issued an injunction. It also ruled that Grodensky was entitled to an award of attorney fees under Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5. Both parties appealed and we, on our own motion, consolidated the appeals.

On appeal, Artichoke Joe's asserts that a protective order issued by the trial court was unlawful, that Labor Code section 351 did not provide Grodensky with a…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.