In-N-Out Burgers’ decision to settle one of a number of overlapping Private Attorneys General Act actions filed by employees was put on hold by a California appellate court, for a determination of whether plaintiffs from two of the other suits may be permitted to intervene.
Although the plaintiffs from the other suits can’t intervene as a matter of right, the trial court erred by not deciding whether permissive intervention was appropriate, Justice Jon B. Streeter of the California Court of Appeal, First District, said Tuesday.
Tom Piplack filed the first suit, challenging In-N-Out’s requirement that restaurant employees report to work ...
Learn more about Bloomberg Law or Log In to keep reading:
See Breaking News in Context
Bloomberg Law provides trusted coverage of current events enhanced with legal analysis.
Already a subscriber?
Log in to keep reading or access research tools and resources.
