It affirmed the dismissal of Kelly’s infliction of emotional distress claim against Seaman, finding that there was no showing that the emotional distress that Kelly ultimately suffered from being ostracized and retaliated against was caused by Seaman’s original tirade.
Wrongful death; survival actions; abatement; proper plaintiff. The business lawyers are those who specialize in business law and corporation laws. Adams v. Superior Court
Plaintiff, Nancilee Adams, sued various defendants for elder abuse, negligence and wrongful death. She asserted claims as the Administrator of the Estate of James C. Adams. In bringing the action she admitted that she did not represent the decedent’s heirs.
Defendants moved under sections 377.60 and 382 to abate the action, arguing that it should not proceed unless all decedent’s heirs were joined in the wrongful-death claims, either as plaintiffs or involuntary plaintiffs. Defendants argued that the estate’s survival claims should also be abated because they were inextricably intertwined with the wrongful-death claims. The trial court granted the motion. The Court of Appeal granted the plaintiff's writ petition. The court held that, although the general rule is that all wrongful-death heirs must be joined in the wrongful- death action, this rule does not apply if the wrongful-death plaintiff is the decedent’s personal representative. Plaintiff was permitted to bring the action as the decedent’s personal representative, and would essentially act as a trustee of the proceeds recovered for the heirs. It was therefore an error for the trial court to abate the action. There was accordingly no basis to abate the survival claims either.
Labor Code section 226.7, remedies for failure to provide breaks and meal periods.
Labor Code section 226.7 requires an employer who Fails to provide an employ-ee with a meal or rest period to pay that employee an additional hour of pay “for each work day that the meal or rest pe ' od is not provided.” The issue presente is whether, if the employer fails to pro both a meal and rest period in a parti lar day, is it liable for one additional hourly payment, or two, under secti 226.7. The trial court held that the s should be construed to require two ments. Affirmed. The disjunctive s ment in section 226.7, referring to or rest period” signals that there may two separate violations with a corres ding remedy' of one additional hour pay for each violation per day. But the erence in the statute “for each work day suggests a single payment per work day, regardless of the violation.
The statute is ambiguous, so the court looks to extrinsic sources, such as its legislative history, to determine statutory intent. The court determined that the statute’s history was not completely clear, but it does suggest that the Industrial Wage Commission’s wage orders consistently provided a separate remedy for violations of the meal period requirements and rest-period requirements. If the Legislature believed that the formulation in the wage orders did not accurately reflect the statutory intent, it could have amended the statute to clarify it, but never did so.
The court also determined that allowing one premium payment for each type of violation accords with and furthers the public policy underlying the meal and rest-break mandates. The court accordingly determined that it was more reasonable to construe the statute as allowing up to two additional penalty hours per day, one for failure to provide a meal break, and one for failure to provide a rest break.
- UFC 259 free : Adesanya vs Blachowicz start time, main event, pay-per-view Adesanya vs Blachowicz free UFC 259 free xgxfhgh