Pineda v. Bank of America, N.A.
117 Cal. Rptr. 3d 377
| Cal. | 2010Background
- Pineda resigned May 11, 2006; final wages paid four days late on May 15.
- Plaintiff sued Oct. 22, 2007, seeking section 203 penalties and UCL restitution.
- Trial court held actions for penalties alone follow a one-year limitations period.
- Court of Appeal affirmed; issue framed around limitations and UCL restitution.
- California Supreme Court held section 203(b) sets a single three-year limitations period for all penalties and penalties cannot be recovered as UCL restitution.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does §203(b) govern all penalties actions regardless of wage claims? | Pineda supports single §203(b) period. | Bank of America argues mixed periods. | Yes; §203(b) provides a single three-year period. |
| Are §203 penalties recoverable as UCL restitution? | Penalties are restitution for unpaid wages under Cortez. | Penalties are not owned by employees; not restitution. | No; penalties cannot be recovered as UCL restitution. |
Key Cases Cited
- Murphy v. Kenneth Cole Productions, Inc., 40 Cal.4th 1094 (2007) (legislature aligned penalties with wages for limitations)
- McCoy v. Superior Court, 157 Cal.App.4th 225 (2007) (McCoy disapproved; misread limitations under §203)
- Cortez v. Purolator Air Filtration Products Co., 23 Cal.4th 163 (2000) (unpaid wages recoverable as restitution under UCL)
- Smith v. Rae-Venter Law Group, 29 Cal.4th 345 (2002) (public policy and wage payment importance)