Bell v. Farmers Insurance Exchange

Bad Law
135 Cal. App. 4th 1138·2006 Cal. App. LEXIS 62·2006 Daily Journal DAR 923·38 Cal. Rptr. 3d 306·2006 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 660
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 24, 2006A110274California4,461 words

Opinion

Opinion

Swager, J.

This fourth appeal in a complex class action is confined to a single postjudgment order denying the defendant’s motion to modify the calculation of prejudgment interest in the judgment. We affirm.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The plaintiffs are former or current claims representatives working for Farmers Insurance Exchange (hereafter FIE), who filed this action October 2, 1996, seeking unpaid overtime compensation under Labor Code section 1194. They alleged that FIE had wrongfully refused to pay overtime compensation for a period beginning on October 1, 1993. In a ruling on a motion for summary adjudication, the trial court upheld the plaintiffs’ contention that their employee class was subject to the overtime regulations of the Industrial Welfare Commission. We affirmed the trial court’s ruling in our decision in Bell v. Farmers Ins. Exchange (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 805 [ 105 Cal.Rptr.2d 59 ].

Following the adjudication of the plaintiffs’ nonexempt status, the trial court conducted a series of hearings on management of the damages phase of the trial and referred certain matters to a special master. The proceedings led to a brief jury trial in which expert witnesses presented…

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.