Asher v. Roberts

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• dismissing a claim for violation of Labor Code section 2802 where the plaintiff failed to allege that he had exhausted the administrative remedies under 2699.3 in his complaint
• dismissing UCL claim to the extent it was based on California Labor Code violations that were also being dismissed
• collecting cases and stating that the reasoning in Landers applies “especially” to “overtime and wage claims because the language of the FLSA and 28 Labor Code provisions is strikingly similar”
• finding the first factor irrelevant in a 28 1 “exact parallelism . . . is not required. It is enough if the two proceedings are ‘substantially 2 similar.’” Id. (quoting Nakash, 882 F.2d at 1416
• declining to conclude that plaintiffs’ minimum wage or overtime claims 21 were plausible without “basic facts,” where there were “no allegations about what 22 period of time or type of conduct [p]laintiffs are counting as hours worked”
• “Landers does not require the plaintiff to identify an exact calendar week or particular instance of denied overtime . . . .”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).