Yesterday the California Supreme Court heard oral argument in Pineda v. Bank of America. Here is a portion of the Court's official extended summary of the case:
Pineda filed suit against Bank of America, alleging a violation of Labor Code section 203, on October 22, 2007 — more than a year after his injury. The Supreme Court is asked to decide whether his suit was timely filed. Pineda argues that a three-year statute of limitations applies to actions under section 203, relying on the following language: “Suit may be filed for these penalties at any time before the expiration of the statute of limitations on an action for the wages from which the penalties arise.” Defendant Bank of America disagrees, interpreting the same language to apply only when a plaintiff sues for both unpaid wages and section 203 penalties. Because Bank of America paid Pineda his final wages, albeit late, and Pineda now seeks only section 203 penalties, Bank of America reasons that a one-year statute of limitations applies and Pineda’s suit is barred as untimely.
The case was argued as part of an educational outreach session. The Court heard argument in the Court of Appeal Courthouse in Fresno. Hundreds of students from all 9 counties in the Fifth Appellate District were given the opportunity to see the Supreme Court in operation.
You can view the oral argument at The California Channel. Jump to about the 7:30 mark in the video to find the start of the matter.
In my haste to publish, I left out one important detail. My colleague, Greg Karasik, argued the case for Plaintiff Pineda.