Garcia v. Sbarro

Filed 3/15/06 Garcia v. Sbarro CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Kim Garlin Dunning and Peter J. Polos, Judges. Reversed with directions.

Jackson Lewis, Michael S. Kun, Frank M. Liberatore, David G. Hoiles, Jr.; Snell & Wilmer, Richard A. Derevan and Michael S. McIntosh for Defendant and Appellant.

Kester & Quinlan, Jack W. Rippy; The Law Center and Kazbek Soobzokov for Plaintiffs and Appellants.

* * *

Defendant Sbarro, Inc. appeals from a judgment in favor of plaintiffs on their claim they were improperly classified as exempt employees and not paid overtime wages. It contends there was insufficient evidence of plaintiffs' overtime hours, overtime was not properly calculated, the judgment is too vague to be enforced, and the amount of attorney fees was not supported by sufficient evidence. We hold there was sufficient evidence of the overtime hours, and overtime was properly calculated for a portion of plaintiffs' employment. We reverse and remand for the court to enter a new judgment stating the amounts due plaintiffs, in accordance with the terms of this opinion. Because we are reversing in part and remanding, the trial court shall also redetermine attorney fees.

FACTS

Defendant, which operates a chain of restaurants, hired plaintiffs as managers of these restaurants. Plaintiffs were hired on different dates during a period from June 1990 and October 1997. They were at-will employees. As part of their employment agreements, plaintiffs signed a â€