Palacio

Palacio v. Progressive Insurance

Good Law
244 F. Supp. 2d 1040·8 Wage & Hour Cas.2d (BNA) 914·2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17021
United States District Court, Central District of CaliforniaAugust 21, 2002CIT.01-03654 GHKCalifornia6,779 words

Opinion

Opinion

King, J.

PROCEEDINGS: Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment

This matter is before the court on the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment. The motions are fully briefed and appropriate for resolution without oral argument. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 78; Local Rule 7-15. After fully considering all pertinent papers filed herewith, we rule as follows:

I.Background

Plaintiff Yolanda Palacio (“Palacio”) asserts four claims against Progressive Insurance Company (“Progressive”): (1) violation of California Labor Code § 1194 for failure to pay overtime wages; (2) violation of California Business and Professions Code § 17200 et seq. for unfair competition; (3) constructive wrongful termination in violation of public policy; and (4) violation .of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq., for failure to pay overtime wages. Her employment with Progressive commenced on January 5, 1998 and ended on March 2, 2001.

Plaintiff moves for summary judgment on claims one and four, including liquidated damages under 29 U.S.C. § 216 (b). Progressive seeks summary judgment on the entire complaint.

II. Summary Judgment

Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no dispute as to the material…

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.