predicted that the California Supreme Court would decide the doctrine is applicable to such claims. Gillings v. Time Warner Cable LLC, 583 Fed.Appx. 712, 714 (9th Cir. 2014). However, recent authority from the California Supreme Court, in Mendiola v. CPS Sec. Solutions, Inc., 60 Cal.4th 833, 842-43, 182 Cal.Rptr.3d 124, 340 P.3d 355 (2015), along with its long-standing precedent declining to import federal limitations into more employee-protective California Labor Code provisions, was not before that panel. Similarly, another panel of this Circuit, following much the same analysis as Gillings, recently found the de minimis doctrine applicable, though the issue was not raised on appeal. Corbin v. Time Warner Entm’t-Advance/Newhouse P’ship, 821 F.3d 1069, 1081, n.11 (9th Cir. 2016) (<HOLDING>). One published decision of an intermediate
holding one minute of offtheclock work to be de minimis such that a california labor code claim for inaccurate wage statements failed holding that to demonstrate retaliation complainedof action must be more than de minimis  holding that a robbery of 40 to 50 satisfied the de minimis standard holding that district court properlydiscounted four calls as de minimis holding that fiveday suspension was not a de minimis deprivation