From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Dimon v. County of Los Angeles

California Court of Appeals, Second District, Fourth Division
Sep 30, 2008
No. B202409 (Cal. Ct. App. Sep. 30, 2008)

Opinion


VI DIMON, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, Defendant and Respondent. B202409 California Court of Appeal, Second District, Fourth Division September 30, 2008

Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC365770

ORDER MODIFYING OPINION [NO CHANGE IN JUDGMENT]

THE COURT:

EPSTEIN, P. J. WILLHITE, J. MANELLA, J.

It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on September 16, 2008, be modified as follows:

On page 4, footnote 5 should be changed to read as follows:

Section 2699 is part of the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA). (Labor Code, § 2698.) The cause of action for civil penalties is derivative of plaintiff’s claim that the County violated section 512. PAGA “was adopted to empower aggrieved employees, acting as private attorneys general, to seek civil penalties for Labor Code violations, penalties which previously could be assessed only by state agencies.” (Dunlap v. Superior Court (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 330, 336.)

There is no change in the judgment.


Summaries of

Dimon v. County of Los Angeles

California Court of Appeals, Second District, Fourth Division
Sep 30, 2008
No. B202409 (Cal. Ct. App. Sep. 30, 2008)
Case details for

Dimon v. County of Los Angeles

Case Details

Full title:VI DIMON, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, Defendant and…

Court:California Court of Appeals, Second District, Fourth Division

Date published: Sep 30, 2008

Citations

No. B202409 (Cal. Ct. App. Sep. 30, 2008)