|
California Lawyer Search - Listings for A Attorney Certified Specialist Taka
Name: A Attorney Certified Specialist Taka
Address: 21250 Hawthorne Blvd Ste 500 Torrance, CA 90503
Phone Number: 310-320-3111
|
Specialties:
|
Dui And Traffic Law
Criminal Trial
|
|
|
|
Cases related to this attorney's specialties:
RODRIGUEZ v. WHITING FARMS INC. FILED United States Court of Appeals 1000 Tenth Circuit FEB 10 2004 PATRICK FISHER Clerk PUBLISH UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT ELADIO RODRIGUEZ, individually; MARTIN GOMEZ, individually, Plaintiffs - Appellants, No. 02-1483 vs. WHITING FARMS, INC.; THOMAS WHITING, individually, Defendants - Appellees. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO (D.C. No. 99-RB-2490 (CBS)) Patricia L. Medige, Colorado Legal Services, Denver, Colorado, for Plaintiffs - Appellants. Sam D. Starritt (and Michael C. Santo, on the brief), Dufford, Waldeck, Milburn & Krohn, L.L.P., Grand Junction, Colorado, for Defendants - Appellees. Before KELLY, HARTZ, Circuit Judges and CASSELL(1), District Judge. KELLY, Circuit Judge. (1) The Honorable Paul G. Cassell, United States District Judge for the District of Utah, sitting by designation. Plaintiffs-Appellants Eladio Rodriguez and Martin Gomez brought this suit against their former employer, Thomas Whiting and Whiting Farms, Inc. (hereinafter collectively referred to as "Whiting Farms"), claiming Whiting Farms failed to pay them overtime as required under the Fair Labor Standards Act (the "FLSA" or the "Act"). Whiting Farms argues it is exempt from paying Rodriguez and Gomez overtime under the FLSA agricultural exemption, which provides an exemption to the overtime wage requirements for "any employee employed in agriculture." 29 U.S.C. 213(b)(12). Rodriguez and Gomez filed a motion for summary judgment on the issue of whether they performed nonagricultural jobs and thus were entitled to overtime pay under the FLSA. Whiting Farms also moved for summary judgment on all issues. The district court determined Rodriguez and Gomez were engaged in agricultural work and therefore were not entitled to overtime under the agricultural exemption. The district court granted Whiting Farms's motion for summary judgment and awarded costs to Whiting Farms. We have jurisdi...
USA v HART IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _ No. 01-60304 _ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus RODALTON HART Defendant-Appellant. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi (Jackson Division) _ June 12, 2002 Before KING, Chief Judge, and REAVLEY and WIENER Circuit Judges. WIENER, Circuit Judge: Defendant-Appellant Rodalton Hart ("Rodalton") appeals his conviction by a jury for violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1014 ("§ 1014") and 18 U.S.C. § 201(b)(1)(B) ("§ 201(b)(1)(B)"). We conclude that the United States's ("the government's") "summary" witness did far more than summarize previously-presented evidence, and that, when the summary witness's testimony and accompanying documentary evidence is redacted, the remaining evidence is insufficient to prove the government's case against Rodalton beyond a reasonable doubt. We therefore reverse Rodalton's conviction, vacate his sentence, and remand the case for a new trial. I. Facts and Proceedings Rodalton has been a resident and family farmer in Holmes County, Mississippi for most of his life. After his graduation from Jacksonville State University in 1972, he returned to Holmes County to help his father run the family farm. In addition to helping his father, Rodalton started his own farm, gradually expanding his operation from thirteen acres - cultivating row crops and raising cattle - to several thousand acres by the mid-1980s. His success in farming was among the factors that led Mike Espy, who was Secretary of Agriculture at the time, to appoint Rodalton as one of Espy's advisors. In 1993, Rodalton and his brothers, who were also involved in farming, formed five separate partnerships, hoping to run their farming operations more efficiently by sharing labor, land, and equipment, and thereby maximize their income. Among the partnerships were R & C Farms (Rodalton and his wife, Carmella), and C & ...
PACHECO v. WHITING FARMS INC. FILED United States Court of Appeals 1000 Tenth Circuit APR 30 2004 PATRICK FISHER Clerk PUBLISH UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT VERONICA PACHECO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. No. 03-1170 WHITING FARMS, INC.; THOMAS WHITING, individually; and N. LYLE JOHNSTON, individually, Defendants-Appellees. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO (D.C. No. 01-RB-851 (CBS)) Submitted on the briefs:(1) Patricia L. Medige, Colorado Legal Services, Denver, Colorado, for Plaintiff-Appellant. Sam D. Starritt and Michael C. Santo, Dufford, Waldeck, Milburn & Krohn, LLP, Grand Junction, Colorado, for Defendants-Appellees. Before SEYMOUR, BALDOCK, and LUCERO, Circuit Judges. (1) After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case therefore is ordered submitted without oral argument. BALDOCK, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff Veronica Pacheco sued Defendants Whiting Farms Inc. and its controlling owners alleging they failed to pay her overtime wages and terminated her employment in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. 201-219. FLSA generally requires employers to pay their employees one and one-half times the employee's regular rate of pay (overtime) for each hour worked in excess of forty hours during any given week. 29 U.S.C. 207(a)(1). FLSA's overtime wage requirements do not apply, however, "with respect to . . . any employee employed in agriculture[.]" Id. 213(b)(12). FLSA also prohibits retaliation against an employee because she engaged in protected activity under the Act. Id. 215(a)(3). The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The district court granted Defendants' motion for summary judgment, holding Defendants were not required to pay Plaintiff overtime wages under FLSA's "agricultural...
|
|
|