MORGAN v. UNITED RETAIL INCORPORATED
<script src="http://www.google-analytics.com/urchin.js" type="text/javascript"> </script> <script type="text/javascript"> _uacct = "UA-1698443-1"; urchinTracker(); </script> <html ><br /> <head><br /> <title>MORGAN v</title><br /> </head><br /> <body><br /> <div><br /> <br/><b<br /> >MORGAN v.<br /> UNITED RETAIL INCORPORATED</b><br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>Filed 6/23/10;<br /> pub. order 7/19/10<br /> (see end of opn.)<br /> <br/><b<br /> > </b><br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>IN<br /> THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>SECOND<br /> APPELLATE DISTRICT<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>DIVISION<br /> SEVEN<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <table class=MsoNormalTable border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=0<br /> ><br /> <tr ><br /> <td width=319 valign=top ><br /> <br/>AMBER MORGAN,<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> Plaintiff and Appellant,<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> v.<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>UNITED RETAIL INCORPORATED,<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> Defendant and Respondent.<br /> <br/> <br /> </td><br /> <td width=319 valign=top ><br /> <br/> B216130<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> (Los Angeles<br /> County<br /> <br/> Super. Ct.<br /> No. BC362191)<br><br /> <br /> <br/> <br /> </td><br /> </tr><br /> </table><br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> APPEAL from<br /> a judgment of the Superior Court<br /> of Los Angeles<br /> County. Ruth A. Kwan, Judge. Affirmed.<br /> <br/> Initiative<br /> Legal Group, Marc Primo, Matthew T. Theriault, Dina S. Livhits and Jennifer<br /> Grock for Plaintiff and Appellant.<br /> <br/> Sheppard,<br /> Mullin, Richter & Hampton, Charles F. Barker and Ross A. Boughton for<br /> Defendant and Respondent.<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>_______________________<br /> <br<br /> clear=all ><br /> <br/>Appellant Amber Morgan (Morgan)<br /> filed a class action lawsuit against her former employer, respondent United<br /> Retail Incorporated (United Retail), for violation of Labor Code section 226.[1] On behalf of a class of current and former<br /> non-exempt employees, Morgan alleged that United Retail's wage statements<br /> failed to comply with section 226, subdivision (a) because they listed the<br /> total number of regular hours and the total number of overtime hours worked by<br /> the employee, but did not list the sum of the regular and overtime hours worked<br /> in a separate line. The trial court<br /> granted summary adjudication in favor<br /> of United Retail on the section 226 claim. <br /> We conclude that the trial court properly granted summary adjudication<br /> because United Retail's wage statements complied with the statutory<br /> requirements of section 226 by â€