Lu v. Hawaiian Gardens Casino 1/22/09 CA2/3

State: California

Court: 1st District Court of Appeal 1st District Court of Appeal

Docket No: B194209

Case Date: 04/30/2009

Preview:Filed 1/22/09

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE

LOUIE HUNG KWEI LU, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. HAWAIIAN GARDENS CASINO, INC. et al., Defendants and Respondents.

B194209 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC286164)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, David Minning, Judge. Affirmed in part; reversed in part. Spiro Moss Barness and Dennis F. Moss for Plaintiff and Appellant. Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton and Tracey A. Kennedy; Law Offices of Michael St. Denis and Michael St. Denis for Defendants and Respondents.

INTRODUCTION In Leighton v. Old Heidelberg, Ltd. (1990) 219 Cal.App.3d 1062 (Leighton) this District Court of Appeal held that tip pooling in restaurants is not prohibited by Labor Code section 351, a statute precluding employers from obtaining access to employees tips and gratuities. Plaintiff, a former casino dealer on behalf of a class of dealers, challenges the legality of a casinos policy requiring dealers to contribute part of the gratuities they receive to a tip pool for employees who provide service to casino patrons. No California case addresses tip pooling in casinos. Distinguishing Leighton, plaintiff argues that unlike restaurants where tips are left on the tables, in casinos, gratuities are handed directly to dealers, with the result that such gratuities belong solely to the dealers. The trial court granted judgment on the pleadings ruling that Labor Code sections 351 and 450 do not provide for a private cause of action. The court then granted the casinos summary judgment motions and dismissed plaintiffs causes of action under Labor Code sections 221, 1197, 2802, and the unfair competition law (Bus. & Prof. Code,

Download Lu v. Hawaiian Gardens Casino 1/22/09 CA2/3.pdf