Dang v. Sutter's Place, Inc. et al

Filing 281

JUDGMENT Signed by Judge Whyte on 10/28/13. (rmwlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/28/2013)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California SAN JOSE DIVISION 11 12 CUC DANG, Plaintiff, 13 14 15 16 Case No. C-10-02181 RMW JUDGMENT v. SUTTER'S PLACE, INC., dba BAY 101 Defendant. 17 18 19 On May 22, 2013 the jury rendered its verdict awarding plaintiff Cuc Dang (“Dang”) a total 20 of $6,965 on her claim for missed meal and rest periods. The jury found in favor of defendant 21 Sutter’s Place dba Bay 101 (“Bay 101”) on all other claims submitted to it. On October 28, 2013 22 the court found in favor of Dang on her equitable claim for violation of California Business & 23 Professions Code § 17000 et seq. (“UCL”). The court found that Dang was entitled to restitution of 24 $6,965 for payments for withheld meal and rest breaks. Therefore, 25 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Dang is entitled to judgment against Bay 101 on her first 26 cause of action for damages of $6,965 for the failure to provide meal and rest breaks. She is also 27 entitled to judgment on her eighth cause of action for restitution of $6,965 for Bay 101’s violation of 28 JUDGMENT Case No. C-10-02181 RMW ALG -1- 1 the UCL. Dang, however, is entitled to recover only a total of $6,965 because the damages and 2 restitution cover the same loss. 3 4 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Dang is not entitled to any recovery on her second, third, fourth, sixth, seventh, ninth or tenth claims. 5 6 7 Dated: October 28, 2013 _________________________________ RONALD M. WHYTE United States District Judge 8 9 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 JUDGMENT Case No. C-10-02181 RMW ALG -2-

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?