Drumm v. Morningstar, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that federal law regarding costs applies rather than “more generously interpreted” state law
• “[E]xpense 27 reimbursements are not ‘amounts for labor performed,’ and are not appropriately part 28 of the calculation.” (citations omitted)
• “The so-called ‘waiting time penalty’ is ‘equivalent to the 9 employee’s daily wages for each day he or she remained unpaid up to a total of 10 30 days.’” (quoting Mamika v. Barca, 68 Cal. App. 4th 487, 493 (1998))

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).