Second Appellate District, Division Eight, not interested in changing opinions post-Brinker

After the Supreme Court decided Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court, 53 Cal. 4th 1004 (2012), a number of cases were remanded to Courts of Appeal for further consideration after Petition grant and hold Orders were issued in those cases.  The Second Appellate District, Division Eight, seems to have a disproportionate share of those cases.  And, generally speaking, Division Eight concluded that Brinker didn't require any change in its analyses:

• In re Lamps Plus Overtime Cases, 209 Cal. App. 4th 35 (2012)
• Hernandez v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., 208 Cal. App. 4th 1487 (2012), as modified (Sept. 25, 2012)
• Tien v. Tenet Healthcare Corporation (October 4, 2012)

In all fairness to Division Eight, the other Courts of Appeal didn't seem to think that, even though Brinker declared a somewhat different standard than that applied by many Courts of Appeal, the clarified standard, according to the Courts of Appeal, didn't require any material modification to their prior opinions.  Go figure.

Interestingly, the same Division Eight, which never met a meal period it liked, partially reversed a denial of class certification in an unpublished decision, Santos v. Vitas Healthcare Corp. of California, Case No. B222645, 2012 WL 4378175 (Sept. 26, 2012).  The Court relied heavily on Brinker for its discussion of an employer's obligation to pay employees when it knows, or has reason to know, that employees are working overtime or off-the-clock.  Hmmmm.