Plaintiff equestrian concern entered into a concession agreement with defendants

Plaintiffs, equestrian concern and concern creditors, appealed the order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California) which granted summary judgment in favor of defendants, city and park management agencies, in an action to recover damages resulting from foreclosure on an equestrian park.

Plaintiff equestrian concern entered into a concession agreement with defendants, city and park management agencies, to develop and operate an equestrian center on park land. Plaintiff equestrian concern failed to succeed in the endeavor and filed a petition for reorganization. Defendant city, acting as creditor of plaintiff equestrian concern, voted against the reorganization plan, and foreclosure followed. The superior court granted the motion for summary judgment in favor of defendants in a cause of action brought by plaintiffs, equestrian concern and concern creditors, under tort and contract principles. Hire a lawyer who knows all about Los Angeles employment law.

The court affirmed, in part, because the reorganization plan featured real estate and restaurant developments not consistent with the concession contract with defendants. No deprivation of property occurred, nor did defendants, city and park management agencies, breach duties owed to plaintiffs. The vote against the reorganization plan was not wrongful under tort or contract principles.

The court affirmed the judgment because defendants, city and park management agencies, did not wrongfully reject the reorganization plan proffered by plaintiffs, equestrian concern, concern owners, and concern creditors, under contract or tort principles. Appellant police association challenged the judgment of the Superior Court of Madera County (California), which held that police officers’ mealtimes were not so restricted as to turn them into hours worked and entitle police officers to overtime compensation.

Appellant police association filed a complaint against respondent city alleging that the restrictions on mealtimes were so restrictive as to convert that time into hours worked and entitle appellants to overtime compensation for those hours. The trial court held that the restrictions on mealtimes did not entitle appellants to overtime, and appellants sought review of the judgment. The court determined that appellants are unlikely to attend to personal business on breaks because they might intimidate the public and that the unpredictable nature of mealtimes prevented appellants from scheduling personal appointments during these breaks. The primary beneficiary of these restrictions was respondent, as appellants’ employer. Second, the restrictions themselves substantially limited appellants’ ability to conduct private business because they were subject to call by superiors, requests from citizens, and emergencies. Finally, under state and local law, appellants were entitled to overtime for work in excess of an 8-hour day or 40 hour week and the right to compensation vested upon performance. The court reversed the trial court’s judgment and remanded the case.

The court reversed the trial court’s judgment. The court held that restrictions on mealtimes for appellant police association substantially limited appellants’ pursuit of private matters during that time and benefitted appellants’ employer, respondent city, so as to entitle appellants to overtime compensation for mealtimes.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Create your website with WordPress.com
Get started
%d bloggers like this: