Espinoza

Espinoza v. Classic Pizza, Inc.

Good Law
114 Cal. App. 4th 968·2003 Cal. App. LEXIS 1960·2004 Daily Journal DAR 38·8 Cal. Rptr. 3d 381·9 Wage & Hour Cas.2d (BNA) 476
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaDecember 30, 2003G030406California2,622 words

Opinion

Opinion

Rylaarsdam, J.

Plaintiff Pedro Espinoza appeals from a $13,517 judgment for overtime wages in his favor against defendant Classic Pizza, Inc. Owners of Classic Pizza, defendants Robert Blum (Robert) and Elaine Blum, were held to be jointly liable to the extent of $6,079. The court also awarded plaintiff $20,000 in attorney fees.

Plaintiff raises several issues: (1) the court improperly disregarded the parties’ stipulation as to the amounts of his salary; (2) the court improperly calculated his regular rate of pay; (3) the court improperly calculated prejudgment interest; (4) the court erred in failing to award “waiting time” penalties; (5) the evidence does not support the finding he worked only 20 overtime hours per week; (6) the court erred in concluding the Blums were not personally liable for all overtime pay; (7) the court abused its discretion in awarding attorney fees by failing to explain its method of calculation; and (8) the court erred in imposing sanctions.

We agree with the first three of plaintiff’s claims and therefore reverse and remand for the trial court to properly calculate the amount due. We disagree with him as to the fourth, fifth, and eighth issues. As to the…

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.