Your first taste of Brinker in 2011, compliments of Hernandez v. Chipotle
Friday, January 28, 2011 at 5:44PM 
On January 26, 2011, the Supreme Court held a weekly conference. Of particular note was the "GRANTED and Held" Order in the matter of Hernandez v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. Hernandez was striking for how vehemently it ignored Jaimez when it chose to follow the most anti-employee decisions of various federal courts and then enunciate a meal period standard that is the functional equivalent of the standard applicable to rest breaks. See prior blog post here. Maybe it means nothing at all other than the Supreme Court doesn't want published meal period cases floating around while Brinker is pending. Or maybe the Supreme Court is close to the finish line on Brinker and views Hernandez as inconsistent with its intended holdings.
The Complex Litigator
I wasn't prepared at the time, but now I am ready with my Brinker-Watch 2011 tile. Look for this tile to alert you to breaking Brinker news. After all, it's just about time for the Supreme Court to announce its March calendar...
Reader Comments (1)
The California Supreme Court did not review Jamiez v. Daiohs USA, Inc. 181 Cal.App.4th 1286 (2010) which was a favorable ruling on the meal break law. This gives further heft to your argument that the court has already decided this issue. What should be clarified I thought is that the Jamiez decision is circulating and can be cited quite beneficially as well as the decision prior to Brinker, Cicairos v. Summit Logistics, Inc., 133 Cal. App. 4th 944 (2005). So if anything the status quo helps practitioners on the side of employees, the California Supreme Court once it makes up its mind to rule will likely mirror these opinions currently out there.
We can only hope that they set it soon as its approaching its 30 month aniverseray of review being granted.