Your recipients will receive an email with this envelope shortly and will be able to access it on trellis. You can always see your envelopes by clicking the Inbox on the top right hand corner.
Your subscription has successfully been upgraded.
FEHA makes it an unlawful employment practice to discriminate against any person because of a physical or mental disability. Cal. Gov. Code § 12940(a). A prima facie case for discrimination “on grounds of physical disability under the FEHA requires plaintiff to show:
Guz v. Bechtel National, Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 317 at 355; Higgins-Williams v. Sutter Medical Foundation (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 78, 84; Avila v. Continental Airlines, Inc. (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1237, 1246.
“On a motion for summary judgment brought against such a cause of action the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing a prima facie case of discrimination based upon physical disability, and the burden then shifts to the employer to offer a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the adverse employment action.” (Deschene v. Pinole Point Steel Co. (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 33, 44.) “Once the employer has done so the plaintiff must offer evidence that the employer’s stated reason is either false or pretextual, or evidence that the employer acted with discriminatory animus, or evidence of each which would permit a reasonable trier of fact to conclude the employer intentionally discriminated.” (Id.)
In order for plaintiff to allege a valid claim for failure to prevent disability discrimination, he must allege
See, CACI 2527; Northrop Grumman Corporation v. Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 1021, 1035.
“Where Plaintiff’s failure to prevent claim is their contention that there was no discrimination or harassment... as a consequence the failure to prevent claim fails.” (Trujillo v. North County Transit Dist. (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 280, 289 stating there can be no violation of § 12940(k) where there has been no discrimination.)
Counsel believes there are ample facts to maintain a cause of action for failure to prevent disability discrimination as Plaintiff contends she was terminated four days after having a partial seizure at work. (Ibid.)
TROUNG VS SUCCESS STRATEGIES
30-2016-00834948-CU-WT-CJC
Oct 03, 2017
Orange County, CA
Discovery should shed light on whether and to what extent Goodwill has training procedures to prevent disability discrimination. For purposes of pleading notice and sufficiency as against a general demurrer, the seventh cause of action is factually specific enough to state a cause of action for failure to prevent disability discrimination. Goodwill shall serve and file its answer to the second amended complaint by no later than May 22, 2018.
DAVEY VS GOODWILL INDUSTRIES
56-2017-00499252-CU-WT-VTA
May 02, 2018
Ventura County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
Here, the Court finds the Plaintiff has shown “good cause” to request a further response to the Interrogatory with regard to claims made regarding disability discrimination, failure to engage in the interactive process, failure to provide a reasonable accommodation and failure to prevent disability discrimination.
GERALD LANGE VS MONSTER ENERGY COMPANY ET AL
BC697115
Jun 24, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
On March 11, 2010, plaintiff filed suit against the County for disability discrimination, failure to prevent disability discrimination, and failure to make reasonable accommodations in violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), as codified in Government Code section 12940, subdivisions (a), (k), and (m). Plaintiff claims to have suffered lost earnings in excess of $40,000 as a result of his wrongful termination, as well as general damages.
JEFFREY WALKER VS COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA
1342413
Jul 19, 2010
Santa Barbara County, CA
It alleges wrongful termination based on disability discrimination, and failure to prevent disability discrimination. Defendant answered in December, 2020. ROA 32. The case is set for trial in January 2022. ROA 36-41. Presently, defendant moves to compel responses to a document demand, special interrogatories, and form interrogatories. ROA 42-53. Modest sanctions are also sought. There is no opposition. 2. Applicable Standards. A. A civil litigant's right to discovery is broad. Williams v.
JIMENEZ VS HOCKING INTERNATIONAL LABORATORIES INC
37-2019-00058679-CU-OE-NC
Jul 13, 2021
San Diego County, CA
Employment
Other Employment
Similarly, "any doubts as to the propriety of granting a summary judgment motion should be resolved in favor of the party opposing the motion." Reid v. Google, Inc. (2010) 50 Cal.4th 512, 535. Plaintiff Patrick Preston asserts causes of action for: (1) wrongful termination – physical disability discrimination; (2) failure to prevent disability discrimination; (3) violation of Labor Code § 1050; (4) interference with prospective economic advantage; and (5) interference with contractual relations.
PATRICK PRESTON VS CITY OF CARLSBAD
37-2015-00021751-CU-WT-NC
Nov 01, 2016
San Diego County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
Plaintiffs assert causes of action for (1) pregnancy discrimination; (2) failure to prevent pregnancy discrimination; (3) disability discrimination; (4) failure to prevent disability discrimination; (5) failure to provide reasonable accommodation; (6) failure to engage in good faith interactive process; (7) retaliation; (8) wrongful termination in violation of public policy; and (9) misclassification as independent contractor.
PATRICIA ALONZO ET AL VS JT LEGAL GROUP APC ET AL
BC660165
Sep 11, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
Fifth Cause of Action: With regard to Plaintiff's fifth cause of action, Plaintiff has raised a triable issue of material fact as to whether failure to prevent retaliation in violation of FEHA occurred, based on the same grounds as Plaintiff's fourth cause of action. However, because there is no triable issue of material fact as to Plaintiff's claim for disability discrimination, then there can be no triable issue as to failure to prevent disability discrimination. Trujillo v.
STRONG, NANCY VS BUTTE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF BEHAVIORAL HEALTH
18CV00067
Jun 26, 2019
Butte County, CA
BACKGROUND On May 4, 2018, Plaintiff Claudia Hernandez, filed a Complaint against Defendants Goodwill Industries of Southern California, Goodwill Industries of Southern California, Inc., Goodwill Southern California, Goodwill, and Does 1-100, stating claims for disability discrimination, retaliation, failure to prevent disability discrimination and retaliation, violation of CFRA, and wrongful termination in violation of public policy.
CLAUDIA HERNANDEZ VS GOODWILL INDUSTRIES OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, ET AL.
19STCV19852
Feb 17, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
Plaintiff's Complaint alleges the following causes of action: (1) Disability Harassment in Violation of FEHA, (2) Disability Discrimination in Violation of FEHA, (3) Failure to Prevent Disability Discrimination in Violation of FEHA, (4) Retaliation in Violation of FEHA, (5) CFRA Interference, (6) Retaliation in Violation of CFRA, (7) Failure to Accommodate, (8) Failure to Engage in the Good Faith Interactive Process, and (9) Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy.
37-2023-00028027-CU-OE-CTL
Mar 08, 2024
San Diego County, CA
The MSA as to this cause of action is therefore denied. 6th-10th COAs: Failure to Accommodate Disability; Failure to Engage in the Interactive Process; (8) Failure to Take Steps Necessary to Prevent Disability Discrimination; Retaliation for Opposing Disability Discrimination; Failure to Take Steps Necessary to Prevent Retaliation Defendants rest their motion with regard to these causes of action on the false premise of the failure of the 5th COA.
SANTA MONICA PETROLEUM VS CARSON J DALY ET AL
BC574446
Feb 23, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiffs fourth cause of action for failure to prevent disability discrimination alleges that the District failed to prevent discrimination on the basis of disability. (FAC, ¶ 58.)
SCOTT E LOWERY VS LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY COLLEGES ET AL
BC413753
May 25, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
provide personnel records; 12) retaliation in violation of Labor Code § 6310; 13) retaliation in violation of Labor Code § 1102.5; 14) wrongful termination in violation of public policy; 15) failure to engage in the interactive process in violation of the FEHA; 16) failure to provide reasonable accommodation in violation of the FEHA; 17) disability discrimination in violation of the FEHA; 18) failure to prevent disability discrimination in violation of the FEHA; 19) retaliation in violation of the FEHA
MAURICIO JACOBS, ET AL. VS ROYAL MOVING & STORAGE INC., ET AL.
19STCV34649
Dec 02, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Other Employment
Failure to Prevent Disability Discrimination in Violation of FEHA, 3. Failure to Accommodate in Violation of FEHA, 4. Failure to Engage in the Good Faith Interactive Process, 5. Retaliation in Violation of FEHA, 6. Retaliation for Use of Sick Leave, 7. Retaliation in Violation of Labor Code § 98.6, 8. Retaliation in Violation of CFRA, 9. Violation of California Labor Code § 6409.6, 10. Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy.
OLIVER ANTONIO VS ALTA HOSPITALS SYSTEM, LLC, DBA SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA HOSPITAL AT VAN NUYS
23VECV01547
Jul 26, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
On July 22, 2009, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (FAC) asserting causes of action for (1) disability discrimination, (2) failure to engage in a good faith, timely interactive process, (3) failure to accommodate, (4) failure to prevent disability discrimination, and (5) retaliation in violation of FEHA. On March 4, 2010, Plaintiff filed an amendment to the complaint substituting the name of Los Angeles Community College District for the incorrect name Los Angeles Community Colleges.
SCOTT E LOWERY VS LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY COLLEGES ET AL
BC413753
Apr 06, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
process, (3) disability discrimination, (4) failure to prevent disability discrimination, (5) retaliation, (6) retaliation under the Family and Medical Leave Act (the “FMLA”) and California Family Rights Act (the “CFRA”), and (7) wrongful termination.
FCS054031 - ANTONIO, VICENTE JR. VS. SUTTER HEALTH (DMS)
FCS054031
Mar 12, 2022
Solano County, CA
process, (3) disability discrimination, (4) failure to prevent disability discrimination, (5) retaliation, (6) retaliation under the Family and Medical Leave Act (the “FMLA”) and California Family Rights Act (the “CFRA”), and (7) wrongful termination.
FCS054031 - ANTONIO, VICENTE JR. VS. SUTTER HEALTH (DMS)
FCS054031
Mar 14, 2022
Solano County, CA
process, (3) disability discrimination, (4) failure to prevent disability discrimination, (5) retaliation, (6) retaliation under the Family and Medical Leave Act (the “FMLA”) and California Family Rights Act (the “CFRA”), and (7) wrongful termination.
FCS054031 - ANTONIO, VICENTE JR. VS. SUTTER HEALTH (DMS)
FCS054031
Mar 13, 2022
Solano County, CA
process, (3) disability discrimination, (4) failure to prevent disability discrimination, (5) retaliation, (6) retaliation under the Family and Medical Leave Act (the “FMLA”) and California Family Rights Act (the “CFRA”), and (7) wrongful termination.
FCS054031 - ANTONIO, VICENTE JR. VS. SUTTER HEALTH (DMS)
FCS054031
Mar 10, 2022
Solano County, CA
process, (3) disability discrimination, (4) failure to prevent disability discrimination, (5) retaliation, (6) retaliation under the Family and Medical Leave Act (the “FMLA”) and California Family Rights Act (the “CFRA”), and (7) wrongful termination.
FCS054031 - ANTONIO, VICENTE JR. VS. SUTTER HEALTH (DMS)
FCS054031
Mar 11, 2022
Solano County, CA
process, (3) disability discrimination, (4) failure to prevent disability discrimination, (5) retaliation, (6) retaliation under the Family and Medical Leave Act (the “FMLA”) and California Family Rights Act (the “CFRA”), and (7) wrongful termination.
FCS054031 - ANTONIO, VICENTE JR. VS. SUTTER HEALTH (DMS)
FCS054031
Mar 15, 2022
Solano County, CA
Case Number: 19STCV23456 Hearing Date: June 14, 2023 Dept: 24 Background On July 8, 2019, Plaintiff Carlos Gonzalez (Plaintiff) filed a Complaint asserting causes of action for (1) disability discrimination, (2) failure to engage in the interactive process, (3) failure to accommodate a disability, (4) retaliation under the FEHA, (5) failure to prevent disability discrimination/retaliation, (6) wrongful termination in violation of public policy, and (7) waiting time penalties against
CARLOS GONZALEZ VS PROMPT DELIVERY, INC.
19STCV23456
Jun 14, 2023
day s
Los Angeles County, CA
The Complaint alleges causes of action for: 1) Disability discrimination; 2) Disability harassment; 3) Failure to engage in the interactive process; 4) Failure to accommodate disability; 5) Retaliation (Govt Code § 12940); 6) Retaliation (Labor Code § 1102.5); 7) Retaliation (Labor Code § 6310); 8) Failure to prevent disability discrimination, harassment, and retaliation; 9) Negligent hiring, supervision, and retention;
NICOLE FIZOR VS HOULIHAN LOKEY FINANCIAL ADVISORS, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.
22STCV26824
May 03, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Failure to Engage in Interactive Process 5. Failure to Take Reasonable Steps to Prevent Disability Discrimination 6. Retaliation 7. Failure to Provide Meal Periods 8. Failure to Provide Rest Periods 9. Non-Payment of Overtime Wages 10. Non-Payment of Wages When Due Johnny’s filed its Answer on July 15, 2015. The case is now set for trial on May 30, 2017.
BASSAM HEMAIDAN VS JOHNNY'S BAR LLC
BC583571
Mar 14, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
In addition, plaintiff has alleged that: “Defendant had in place policies and procedures that specifically prohibited discrimination based on a disability and [that] required Defendant’s managers, officers, and agents to prevent disability discrimination.
BARNES VS INLAND BUILDERS SUPPLY INC
BLC2000158
May 14, 2021
Riverside County, CA
Issue 4: Failure to Prevent Disability Discrimination in Violation of the FEHA The fifth cause of action is for failure to provide an environment free from discrimination and retaliation under Government Code section 12940. (Gov’t Code, § 12940, subd. (k).)
ANGELIQUE PINKSTAFF VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES
BC685458
Nov 13, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
ISSUE NO. 5: “Plaintiff’s fifth cause of action for failure to prevent discrimination is without merit, because Defendant ACP did not fail to prevent discrimination of Plaintiff HRISTOVA. Plaintiff cannot prevail on her claim for failure to prevent disability discrimination because plaintiff has not and cannot set forth any evidence that she was discriminated against.”
Histrova v. AlCP Management Co.
Sep 01, 2016
Orange County, CA
Given that the disability discrimination claim survives, the inference is that Defendant failed to take reasonable steps to prevent disability discrimination resulting in Plaintiffs termination. The detailsand evidence which is presumptively in Defendants possessioncan be ascertained through discovery. The demurrer to the fourth cause of action is OVERRULED. 5. Fifth Cause of Action (Retaliation for Engaging in Protected Activity). A.
LAURA HERNANDEZ, AN INDIVIDUAL VS DTF PREP, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY
23STCV27703
Mar 19, 2024
Los Angeles County, CA
She alleges disability discrimination as well as failure to prevent disability discrimination and wrongful termination under one cause of action. Each separate violation should be alleged as its own cause of action with specific facts to support each cause of action. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 2.112.) Discrimination, failure to prevent discrimination, and wrongful termination are three separate causes of action.
CASTRO VS MEACHAM, III
SCV-269513
Aug 16, 2023
Sonoma County, CA
Defendant's motion is granted as to Plaintiff's second and third causes of action. Plaintiff's fourth cause of action is for failure to prevent disability discrimination. Such claim fails because it is dependent on a finding of discrimination or harassment and, as discussed above, Plaintiff fails to establish discrimination or harassment. (See Trujillo v. North County Transit Dist. (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 280, 286.) Defendant's motion is granted as to Plaintiff's fourth cause of action.
SU VS SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PERMANENTE MEDICAL GROUP
37-2019-00045247-CU-WT-CTL
Sep 01, 2021
San Diego County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
MIL #4: TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE, ARGUMENT OR REFERENCE TO DISCIPLINARY ACTION TAKEN AGAINST PLAINTIFF AFTER THE LAST ALLEGED INCIDENT OF ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTION: The Court requires further discussion on the record prior to ruling. Plaintiff claims disability discrimination and the failure to take all reasonable steps to prevent disability discrimination.
DENISE ANDERSON VS. THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVESITY OF CALIFORNIA
34-2014-00160884-CU-OE-GDS
Apr 26, 2017
Sacramento County, CA
Employment
Other Employment
On July 22, 2009, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint asserting causes of action for (1) disability discrimination, (2) failure to engage in a good faith, timely interactive process, (3) failure to accommodate, (4) failure to prevent disability discrimination, and (5) retaliation in violation of FEHA. On March 4, 2010, Plaintiff filed an amendment to the complaint substituting the name of Los Angeles Community College District for the incorrect name Los Angeles Community Colleges.
SCOTT E LOWERY VS LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY COLLEGES ET AL
BC413753
Feb 09, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
BACKGROUND On May 4, 2018, Plaintiff Claudia Hernandez, filed a Complaint against Defendants Goodwill Industries of Southern California, Goodwill Industries of Southern California, Inc., Goodwill Southern California, Goodwill, and Does 1-100, stating claims for disability discrimination, retaliation, failure to prevent disability discrimination and retaliation, violation of CFRA, and wrongful termination in violation of public policy.
CLAUDIA HERNANDEZ VS GOODWILL INDUSTRIES OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, ET AL.
19STCV19852
Apr 05, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
In addition, Defendant had in place policies and procedures that specifically prohibited discrimination based on a disability and required Defendant’s managers, officers, and agents to prevent disability discrimination.
PETER WITHERS VS PLANNED PARENTHOOD CALIFORNIA CENTRAL COAST
20CV03872
May 10, 2021
Santa Barbara County, CA
Moreover, in the moving separate statement, Defendant does not cite any evidence whereby it took all reasonable steps to prevent disability discrimination in the refusal to hire Plaintiff for any of the 56 available positions for which she applied. As such, moving Defendant has not met its initial burden of demonstrating that it is entitled to judgment on this cause of action. The burden does not shift to Plaintiff to raise a triable issue of material fact.
CHEREE MARTIN VS SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PERMANENTE MEDICAL GRP
BC591080
May 25, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
The complaint in Gomez alleges "PAGA and INDIVIDUAL CLAIMS" against Vortex for failure to pay overtime, failure to pay minimum wages, failure to provide meal periods, failure to provide rest periods, failure to provide and maintain compliant wage statements, failure to pay wages upon termination as well as a PAGA claim for failure to maintain records and an individual claim for unfair competition.
JORGE URBINA VS VORTEX MAINTENANCE INC
37-2018-00010717-CU-OE-CTL
Aug 20, 2020
San Diego County, CA
Employment
Other Employment
BACKGROUND: Plaintiff commenced this action on 6/20/16 against defendants for: (1) disability discrimination; (2) failure to engage in a good faith interactive process; (3) failure to accommodate; (4) retaliation; (5) retaliation; (6) failure to prevent discrimination, harassment, or retaliation; (7) failure to pay minimum wage; (8) failure to pay overtime; (9) failure to pay wages due; (10) failure to provide meal periods; (11) failure to provide rest periods; (12) failure to reimburse expenses; (13) failure
CLAUDIA L TRIGUEROS VS ILOBASCO ENTERPRISES INC ET AL
BC624368
Sep 21, 2016
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
Monson of $500 for failure to appear 10-31-2023, $500 for failure to file accounting, and $500 for failure to turnover trust documents.
MATTER OF: DONALD W. MONSON 2002 TRUST UDT 8/15/2002
P22-01886
Dec 14, 2023
Contra Costa County, CA
On April 30, 2019, Plaintiff Jose Manuel Alday, individually and behalf of all others similarly situated, commenced this action against Defendant Fantasy Dyeing & Fishing, Inc. for (1) failure to pay minimum and regular rate wages; (2) failure to pay overtime compensation; (3) failure to provide meal periods; (4) failure to authorize and permit rest breaks; (5) failure to timely pay final wages at termination; (6) failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements; and (7) unfair business practices.
JOSE MANUEL ALDAY VS FANTASY DYEING & FISHING, INC.
19STCV14956
Dec 28, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Other Employment
Need appearance by Michael Monson to show cause why he should not be sanctioned for failure to appear 4-24-2023 and 7-25-2023, failure to comply with the court’s order to turn over assets, failure to account, and failure to turn over bank statements, pursuant to 7-25-2023 minute order. The Court will consider sanctions of up to $1,500.00, pursuant to CCP § 177.5. Notes: 1.
MATTER OF: DONALD W. MONSON 2002 TRUST UDT 8/15/2002
P22-01886
Oct 31, 2023
Contra Costa County, CA
Failure to pay overtime wages 2. Failure to authorize meal periods 3. Failure to authorize or permit rest periods 4. Failure to pay all vacation/PTO wages 5. Failure to indemnify for losses and expenditures 6. Failure to provide complete and accurate wage statements 7. Failure to pay all wages upon separation of employment 8. Unfair business practices 9. Failure to provide employment records upon request 10.
STEPHANIE LOPUT VS AEROSTAR GLOBAL LOGISTICS, LLC, ET AL.
21STCV40561
Jul 05, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
Failure to pay overtime wages 2. Failure to authorize meal periods 3. Failure to authorize or permit rest periods 4. Failure to pay all vacation/PTO wages 5. Failure to indemnify for losses and expenditures 6. Failure to provide complete and accurate wage statements 7. Failure to pay all wages upon separation of employment 8. Unfair business practices 9. Failure to provide employment records upon request 10.
STEPHANIE LOPUT VS AEROSTAR GLOBAL LOGISTICS, LLC, ET AL.
21STCV40561
Jul 01, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
Demurrer to First Amended Complaint The Demurrer by Defendants Samuel Alexander Escobar dba Lionsgate Construction and Argonaut Insurance Company to the Complaint’s First Cause of Action for failure to state a claim, for uncertainty, and for failure to allege whether contact is oral or written or implied by conduct; to the Complaint’s Second Cause of Action for failure to state a claim, for uncertainty, for failure to allege
WEST CREEK BUILDERS, LLC VS SAMUEL ESCOBAR ET AL.
20CV-03773
Aug 12, 2021
Merced County, CA
failure to permit records inspection; and (8) failure to provide wage theft notices.
KENNETH TAYLOR, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL AGGRIEVED CALIFORNIA-BASED NON-EXEMPT EMPLOYEES VS MICHAEL KORS (USA), INC., ET AL.
20STCV19614
Mar 10, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Other Employment
Plaintiff is ordered to appear at that time and show cause why the entire action should not be dismissed for its failure to comply with court rules and the prior orders of this court, to wit: failure and refusal to serve the summons and complaint on the defendant; failure to file a proof of service as ordered by the court; failure to secure the answer of the defendant or take his default; failure to file a compliance statement; failure to file a case management statement on February 21, 2008; improperly appearing
M & S PIPE LINES. INC. VS. MIKE MORHSAZ
07AS00969
Nov 03, 2008
Sacramento County, CA
Contract
Breach
Plaintiff's PAGA claim alleges "Defendants' failure to provide duty-free meal and rest breaks, failure to provide accurate wage statements, failure to reimburse employee expenses, failure to pay overtime, failure to comply with itemized employee wage statement provisions, failure to pay wages owed, and failure to pay all wages due upon termination entitle Plaintiff to recover civil penalties as aggrieved an employee on behalf of himself and other current and former similarly situated employees of Defendants,
VIZGART VS CATALINA OFFSHORE PRODUCTS INC
37-2016-00017394-CU-WT-CTL
Dec 08, 2017
San Diego County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
to pay earned wages; (11) waiting time penalties; (12) failure to provide rest periods; (13) failure to provide meal periods; (14) failure to provide itemized wage statements; (15) unfair competition; (16) intentional infliction of emotional distress; and (17) failure to render aid.
GORJI ASHRAF VS KOLAH FARANGI INC ET AL
BC716696
Jun 27, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
to pay earned wages; (11) waiting time penalties; (12) failure to provide rest periods; (13) failure to provide meal periods; (14) failure to provide itemized wage statements; (15) unfair competition; (16) intentional infliction of emotional distress; and (17) failure to render aid.
PAUL BERG VS AMERICAN EXPRESS TAX & BUSINESS SVCS INC ET AL
BC176696
Jun 27, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiff’s Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Dismissal is granted. According to the moving papers, Plaintiff’s counsel did not receive notice of the 10/11/17 CMC or the 3/16/18 OSC re: Sanctions/Dismissal for Failure to Appear at the CMC, failure to file a CMC statement, failure to serve the Defendant, failure to prosecute, and, as a result, did not calendar either date.
RIOS V. TEPPANYAKI GRILL & SUPREME BUFFETT
30-2017-00942701-CU-PO-CJC
Apr 20, 2018
Orange County, CA
The Complaint asserts the following causes of action: (1) Failure to Pay Overtime; (2) Failure to Provide Meal Periods; (3) Failure to Provide Rest Breaks; (4) Failure to Provide Itemized Wage Statements; (5) Failure to Reimburse Business Expenses; (6) Willful Misclassification; (7) Failure to Pay all Wages; (8) Failure to Keep Accurate Payroll Records; (9) Failure to Timely Pay Wages Due at Termination; and (10) Unlawful Business Practices. The Labor Code applies to employers.
OSCAR DRENE VS ONE WAY SECURITY, INC .
18NWCV00104
Nov 12, 2020
Lori Ann Fournier or Olivia Rosales
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Other Employment
Plaintiff is ordered to appear at that time and show cause why the entire action should not be dismissed due to his failure to comply with court rules and prior orders of this court, to wit: failure to file a case managment statement; failure to file a compliance statement; failure to serve the summons and complaint; failure to file a certificate of service; and failure to pay sanctions as ordered by the court.
CHARLES JONES VS. BONITA WILSON
2007-00883957
Oct 14, 2008
Sacramento County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Plaintiff is ordered to appear at that time and show cause why the entire action should not be dismissed due to his failure to comply with court rules and prior orders of this court, to wit: failure to file a case managment statement; failure to file a compliance statement; failure to serve the summons and complaint; failure to file a certificate of service; and failure to pay sanctions as ordered by the court.
CHARLES JONES VS. BONITA WILSON
34-2007-00883957-CU-PO-GDS
Oct 14, 2008
Sacramento County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
At the last hearing on August 1, 2022, the Court imposed sanctions in the amount of $1,000 for failure to appear on April 25, 2022, failure to file a Status Report, and failure to provide proof that guardianship has been established in Oregon. The Court has received the Annual Status Report filed on August 30, 2022.
GDN OF ARAMBUL
CVPG18-0029780
Sep 18, 2022
Shasta County, CA
At the last hearing on August 1, 2022, the Court imposed sanctions in the amount of $1,000 for failure to appear on April 25, 2022, failure to file a Status Report, and failure to provide proof that guardianship has been established in Oregon. The Court has received the Annual Status Report filed on August 30, 2022.
GDN OF ARAMBUL
CVPG18-0029780
Sep 20, 2022
Shasta County, CA
At the last hearing on August 1, 2022, the Court imposed sanctions in the amount of $1,000 for failure to appear on April 25, 2022, failure to file a Status Report, and failure to provide proof that guardianship has been established in Oregon. The Court has received the Annual Status Report filed on August 30, 2022.
GDN OF ARAMBUL
CVPG18-0029780
Sep 23, 2022
Shasta County, CA
At the last hearing on August 1, 2022, the Court imposed sanctions in the amount of $1,000 for failure to appear on April 25, 2022, failure to file a Status Report, and failure to provide proof that guardianship has been established in Oregon. The Court has received the Annual Status Report filed on August 30, 2022.
GDN OF ARAMBUL
CVPG18-0029780
Sep 17, 2022
Shasta County, CA
At the last hearing on August 1, 2022, the Court imposed sanctions in the amount of $1,000 for failure to appear on April 25, 2022, failure to file a Status Report, and failure to provide proof that guardianship has been established in Oregon. The Court has received the Annual Status Report filed on August 30, 2022.
GDN OF ARAMBUL
CVPG18-0029780
Sep 21, 2022
Shasta County, CA
At the last hearing on August 1, 2022, the Court imposed sanctions in the amount of $1,000 for failure to appear on April 25, 2022, failure to file a Status Report, and failure to provide proof that guardianship has been established in Oregon. The Court has received the Annual Status Report filed on August 30, 2022.
GDN OF ARAMBUL
CVPG18-0029780
Sep 22, 2022
Shasta County, CA
At the last hearing on August 1, 2022, the Court imposed sanctions in the amount of $1,000 for failure to appear on April 25, 2022, failure to file a Status Report, and failure to provide proof that guardianship has been established in Oregon. The Court has received the Annual Status Report filed on August 30, 2022.
GDN OF ARAMBUL
CVPG18-0029780
Sep 19, 2022
Shasta County, CA
.: 19STCV22048 Hearing Date: January 5, 2021 On 6/24/20219, Plaintiff Soontorn Lauharatanahirun (Plaintiff) filed suit against the Crispy Pork Gang and Manat Thawimueanla, alleging: (1) failure to provide meal periods; (2) failure to provide rest periods; (3) failure to pay minimum wage; (4) failure to pay overtime; (5) failure to pay all wages; (6) failure to pay waiting time penalties; (7) failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements; (8) unfair business
SOONTORN LAUHARATANAHIRUN VS CRISPY PORK GANG
19STCV22048
Jan 05, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
Ferreira seeks to recover on claims of (i) failure to pay minimum wages; (ii) failure to pay overtime; (iii) failure to provide meal periods; (iv) failure to provide rest breaks; (v) failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements; (vi) failure to pay all wages due upon separation of employment; (vii) unfair competition; and (viii) penalties under PAGA.
FERREIRA VS. B. BRAUN MEDICAL, INC.
30-2020-01141094
Aug 27, 2021
Orange County, CA
On June 30, 2020, Plaintiff filed a class action complaint against Defendant and Does 1-100, alleging (1) failure to pay overtime wages; (2) failure to pay minimum wages; (3) failure to pay overtime wages at the legal overtime pay rate; (4) failure to provide meal periods or compensation of lieu of; (5) failure to provide paid rest periods; (6) failure to timely furnish accurate itemized wage statements; (7) violations of Labor Code section 203; and (8) unfair business practices.
DIANA MIRANDA VS KITTRICH CORPORATION
20STCV25005
Jan 31, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
to Pay Earned Wages; Failure to Pay Overtime Wages; Failure to Provide Rest Periods; Failure to Provide Meal Periods; Waiting Time Penalties; Failure to Provide Itemized Wage Statements; Failure to Reimburse Business Expenses in Violation of Labor Code § 2802; Unfair competition; Violation of California Labor Code § 226.
AGUSTIN SANCHEZ VS APRO LLC, ET AL.
19STCV18536
Feb 05, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
Vazquez for (1) failure to pay earned wages and overtime compensation; (2) failure to indemnify/reimburse expenses to employee; (3) failure to provide rest breaks; (4) failure to provide meal breaks; (5) failure to provide accurate itemized statements; (6) failure to pay all wages due at end of employment; (7) waiting time penalties; (8) failure to maintain payroll records; (9) failure to produce employee file; and (10) unfair business practices.
MA. DOLORES CASTILLO GALLAGA VS TACOS LUPITA VR LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.
19STCV25728
Jul 24, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Other Employment
action and for uncertainty, (10) the Ninth Cause of Action for Failure to Pay Overtime Wages for Failure to state a cause of action and for uncertainty, amd (11) the Tenth Cause of Action for Retaliation for Failure to state a cause of action and for uncertainty are all SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.
CYRUS NOWNEJAD VS KENNETH RALIDIS, ET AL.
22CV-00746
Apr 19, 2023
Merced County, CA
STATEMENT OF CASE This is an employment action for failure to pay wages and provide breaks. Plaintiff Adriana Guerrero filed a lawsuit against Defendant MSA Trucking, LLC, alleging failure to pay wages, failure to provide meal periods, failure to provide rest periods, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to reimburse work related expenses, failure to pay wages due upon termination, failure to issue accurate itemized wage statements, and unlawful/unfair business practice.
GUSTAVO BANUELOS VS MSA TRUCKING, LLC A NEVADA CORPORATION
20STCV07466
Mar 21, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT JUDGEMENT BACKGROUND: Plaintiffs commenced this action 09/20/17 against defendant for: (1) failure to pay wage; (2) failure to provide meal periods; (3) failure to provide rest periods; (4) failure to pay overtime wages; (5) failure to pay wages due upon termination: waiting time; and (6) unfair business practices.
GILBERTO TOSTADO CADENAS ET AL VS DAVID BEAUTY COLLEGE INC
BC676564
May 31, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
Case Number: 22CV-0199509 Tentative Ruling on Order to Show Cause Re: Sanctions: An Order to Show Cause Re: Sanctions (hereinafter “OSC”) issued on February 23, 2023 to Plaintiff for failure to appear at the mandatory settlement conference on January 9, 2023 and failure to prosecute. Plaintiff did not file a written response to the OSC. With no sufficient excuse for the failure to appear and the failure to prosecute this case, sanctions are imposed in the amount of $250.00 against Plaintiff.
OSUNA VS. J.A. SUTHERLAND, INC.
22CV-0199509
Apr 16, 2023
Shasta County, CA
Case Number: 22CV-0199509 Tentative Ruling on Order to Show Cause Re: Sanctions: An Order to Show Cause Re: Sanctions (hereinafter “OSC”) issued on February 23, 2023 to Plaintiff for failure to appear at the mandatory settlement conference on January 9, 2023 and failure to prosecute. Plaintiff did not file a written response to the OSC. With no sufficient excuse for the failure to appear and the failure to prosecute this case, sanctions are imposed in the amount of $250.00 against Plaintiff.
OSUNA VS. J.A. SUTHERLAND, INC.
22CV-0199509
Apr 15, 2023
Shasta County, CA
Case Number: 22CV-0199509 Tentative Ruling on Order to Show Cause Re: Sanctions: An Order to Show Cause Re: Sanctions (hereinafter “OSC”) issued on February 23, 2023 to Plaintiff for failure to appear at the mandatory settlement conference on January 9, 2023 and failure to prosecute. Plaintiff did not file a written response to the OSC. With no sufficient excuse for the failure to appear and the failure to prosecute this case, sanctions are imposed in the amount of $250.00 against Plaintiff.
OSUNA VS. J.A. SUTHERLAND, INC.
22CV-0199509
Apr 19, 2023
Shasta County, CA
Case Number: 22CV-0199509 Tentative Ruling on Order to Show Cause Re: Sanctions: An Order to Show Cause Re: Sanctions (hereinafter “OSC”) issued on February 23, 2023 to Plaintiff for failure to appear at the mandatory settlement conference on January 9, 2023 and failure to prosecute. Plaintiff did not file a written response to the OSC. With no sufficient excuse for the failure to appear and the failure to prosecute this case, sanctions are imposed in the amount of $250.00 against Plaintiff.
OSUNA VS. J.A. SUTHERLAND, INC.
22CV-0199509
Apr 20, 2023
Shasta County, CA
Case Number: 22CV-0199509 Tentative Ruling on Order to Show Cause Re: Sanctions: An Order to Show Cause Re: Sanctions (hereinafter “OSC”) issued on February 23, 2023 to Plaintiff for failure to appear at the mandatory settlement conference on January 9, 2023 and failure to prosecute. Plaintiff did not file a written response to the OSC. With no sufficient excuse for the failure to appear and the failure to prosecute this case, sanctions are imposed in the amount of $250.00 against Plaintiff.
OSUNA VS. J.A. SUTHERLAND, INC.
22CV-0199509
Apr 21, 2023
Shasta County, CA
Case Number: 22CV-0199509 Tentative Ruling on Order to Show Cause Re: Sanctions: An Order to Show Cause Re: Sanctions (hereinafter “OSC”) issued on February 23, 2023 to Plaintiff for failure to appear at the mandatory settlement conference on January 9, 2023 and failure to prosecute. Plaintiff did not file a written response to the OSC. With no sufficient excuse for the failure to appear and the failure to prosecute this case, sanctions are imposed in the amount of $250.00 against Plaintiff.
OSUNA VS. J.A. SUTHERLAND, INC.
22CV-0199509
Apr 17, 2023
Shasta County, CA
Case Number: 22CV-0199509 Tentative Ruling on Order to Show Cause Re: Sanctions: An Order to Show Cause Re: Sanctions (hereinafter “OSC”) issued on February 23, 2023 to Plaintiff for failure to appear at the mandatory settlement conference on January 9, 2023 and failure to prosecute. Plaintiff did not file a written response to the OSC. With no sufficient excuse for the failure to appear and the failure to prosecute this case, sanctions are imposed in the amount of $250.00 against Plaintiff.
OSUNA VS. J.A. SUTHERLAND, INC.
22CV-0199509
Apr 18, 2023
Shasta County, CA
LABOR CODE § 204, 510, 1194 (9) FAILURE TO PAY MINIMUM WAGES IN VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE § 1194, 1194.2 (10) FAILURE TO PROVIDE MEAL PERIODS IN VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE § 226.7, 512 (11) FAILURE TO PROVIDE REST PERIODS IN VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE § 226.7 (12) FAILURE TO FURNISH TIMELY AND ACCURATE ITEMIZED WAGE STATEMENTS (13) FAILURE TO PROVIDE FINAL WAGES AT SEPARATION IN VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE § 201, 203 (14) VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE §17200.
IN SOOK LIM VS YELLOW HOUSE GROUP, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.
19STCV20970
Aug 02, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
INTRODUCTION Plaintiff’s complaint pleads the following Causes of Action against all Defendants: Failure to Pay Minimum Wage; Failure to Pay Overtime Compensation; Failure to Provide Required Meal Periods; Failure to Provide Required Rest Periods; Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized Statements; Failure to Pay Wages upon Termination; and [Violation of] Unlawful Business Practices Act.
JOSEPH NAM VS BANGKOK INTIMEX USA INC. ET AL
NC061165
Oct 12, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
Case Number: CVG21-0001476 Tentative Ruling on Order to Show Cause Re: Sanctions: An Order to Show Cause Re: Sanctions (hereinafter “OSC”) issued on November 9, 2022 to Plaintiff Westlake Services, LLC and Counsel Adrenah Minassian for failure timely serve the complaint, failure to timely enter default, and failure to appear at the Mandatory Settlement Conference on October 3, 2022.
WESTLAKE SERVICES VS. COOK, ETAL.
CVG21-0001476
Nov 29, 2022
Shasta County, CA
Case Number: CVG21-0001476 Tentative Ruling on Order to Show Cause Re: Sanctions: An Order to Show Cause Re: Sanctions (hereinafter “OSC”) issued on November 9, 2022 to Plaintiff Westlake Services, LLC and Counsel Adrenah Minassian for failure timely serve the complaint, failure to timely enter default, and failure to appear at the Mandatory Settlement Conference on October 3, 2022.
WESTLAKE SERVICES VS. COOK, ETAL.
CVG21-0001476
Nov 19, 2022
Shasta County, CA
Case Number: CVG21-0001476 Tentative Ruling on Order to Show Cause Re: Sanctions: An Order to Show Cause Re: Sanctions (hereinafter “OSC”) issued on November 9, 2022 to Plaintiff Westlake Services, LLC and Counsel Adrenah Minassian for failure timely serve the complaint, failure to timely enter default, and failure to appear at the Mandatory Settlement Conference on October 3, 2022.
WESTLAKE SERVICES VS. COOK, ETAL.
CVG21-0001476
Nov 23, 2022
Shasta County, CA
Case Number: CVG21-0001476 Tentative Ruling on Order to Show Cause Re: Sanctions: An Order to Show Cause Re: Sanctions (hereinafter “OSC”) issued on November 9, 2022 to Plaintiff Westlake Services, LLC and Counsel Adrenah Minassian for failure timely serve the complaint, failure to timely enter default, and failure to appear at the Mandatory Settlement Conference on October 3, 2022.
WESTLAKE SERVICES VS. COOK, ETAL.
CVG21-0001476
Nov 22, 2022
Shasta County, CA
Case Number: CVG21-0001476 Tentative Ruling on Order to Show Cause Re: Sanctions: An Order to Show Cause Re: Sanctions (hereinafter “OSC”) issued on November 9, 2022 to Plaintiff Westlake Services, LLC and Counsel Adrenah Minassian for failure timely serve the complaint, failure to timely enter default, and failure to appear at the Mandatory Settlement Conference on October 3, 2022.
WESTLAKE SERVICES VS. COOK, ETAL.
CVG21-0001476
Nov 25, 2022
Shasta County, CA
Case Number: CVG21-0001476 Tentative Ruling on Order to Show Cause Re: Sanctions: An Order to Show Cause Re: Sanctions (hereinafter “OSC”) issued on November 9, 2022 to Plaintiff Westlake Services, LLC and Counsel Adrenah Minassian for failure timely serve the complaint, failure to timely enter default, and failure to appear at the Mandatory Settlement Conference on October 3, 2022.
WESTLAKE SERVICES VS. COOK, ETAL.
CVG21-0001476
Nov 27, 2022
Shasta County, CA
Case Number: CVG21-0001476 Tentative Ruling on Order to Show Cause Re: Sanctions: An Order to Show Cause Re: Sanctions (hereinafter “OSC”) issued on November 9, 2022 to Plaintiff Westlake Services, LLC and Counsel Adrenah Minassian for failure timely serve the complaint, failure to timely enter default, and failure to appear at the Mandatory Settlement Conference on October 3, 2022.
WESTLAKE SERVICES VS. COOK, ETAL.
CVG21-0001476
Nov 24, 2022
Shasta County, CA
Case Number: CVG21-0001476 Tentative Ruling on Order to Show Cause Re: Sanctions: An Order to Show Cause Re: Sanctions (hereinafter “OSC”) issued on November 9, 2022 to Plaintiff Westlake Services, LLC and Counsel Adrenah Minassian for failure timely serve the complaint, failure to timely enter default, and failure to appear at the Mandatory Settlement Conference on October 3, 2022.
WESTLAKE SERVICES VS. COOK, ETAL.
CVG21-0001476
Nov 21, 2022
Shasta County, CA
Case Number: CVG21-0001476 Tentative Ruling on Order to Show Cause Re: Sanctions: An Order to Show Cause Re: Sanctions (hereinafter “OSC”) issued on November 9, 2022 to Plaintiff Westlake Services, LLC and Counsel Adrenah Minassian for failure timely serve the complaint, failure to timely enter default, and failure to appear at the Mandatory Settlement Conference on October 3, 2022.
WESTLAKE SERVICES VS. COOK, ETAL.
CVG21-0001476
Dec 01, 2022
Shasta County, CA
Case Number: CVG21-0001476 Tentative Ruling on Order to Show Cause Re: Sanctions: An Order to Show Cause Re: Sanctions (hereinafter “OSC”) issued on November 9, 2022 to Plaintiff Westlake Services, LLC and Counsel Adrenah Minassian for failure timely serve the complaint, failure to timely enter default, and failure to appear at the Mandatory Settlement Conference on October 3, 2022.
WESTLAKE SERVICES VS. COOK, ETAL.
CVG21-0001476
Nov 28, 2022
Shasta County, CA
Case Number: CVG21-0001476 Tentative Ruling on Order to Show Cause Re: Sanctions: An Order to Show Cause Re: Sanctions (hereinafter “OSC”) issued on November 9, 2022 to Plaintiff Westlake Services, LLC and Counsel Adrenah Minassian for failure timely serve the complaint, failure to timely enter default, and failure to appear at the Mandatory Settlement Conference on October 3, 2022.
WESTLAKE SERVICES VS. COOK, ETAL.
CVG21-0001476
Nov 26, 2022
Shasta County, CA
Case Number: CVG21-0001476 Tentative Ruling on Order to Show Cause Re: Sanctions: An Order to Show Cause Re: Sanctions (hereinafter “OSC”) issued on November 9, 2022 to Plaintiff Westlake Services, LLC and Counsel Adrenah Minassian for failure timely serve the complaint, failure to timely enter default, and failure to appear at the Mandatory Settlement Conference on October 3, 2022.
WESTLAKE SERVICES VS. COOK, ETAL.
CVG21-0001476
Nov 20, 2022
Shasta County, CA
Case Number: CVG21-0001476 Tentative Ruling on Order to Show Cause Re: Sanctions: An Order to Show Cause Re: Sanctions (hereinafter “OSC”) issued on November 9, 2022 to Plaintiff Westlake Services, LLC and Counsel Adrenah Minassian for failure timely serve the complaint, failure to timely enter default, and failure to appear at the Mandatory Settlement Conference on October 3, 2022.
WESTLAKE SERVICES VS. COOK, ETAL.
CVG21-0001476
Dec 02, 2022
Shasta County, CA
Case Number: CVG21-0001476 Tentative Ruling on Order to Show Cause Re: Sanctions: An Order to Show Cause Re: Sanctions (hereinafter “OSC”) issued on November 9, 2022 to Plaintiff Westlake Services, LLC and Counsel Adrenah Minassian for failure timely serve the complaint, failure to timely enter default, and failure to appear at the Mandatory Settlement Conference on October 3, 2022.
WESTLAKE SERVICES VS. COOK, ETAL.
CVG21-0001476
Nov 30, 2022
Shasta County, CA
Partially granted pursuant to order filed 7-29-21. E. Per 11-8-2022 minute order, court issued an Order to Show Cause against Julie Evans for failure to appear 11-8-2022, and failure to file and serve an accounting, pursuant to 8-9-2022 minute order. F.
ESTATE OF NANCY R. WESTBROOK
MSP19-01212
Aug 31, 2023
Contra Costa County, CA
This is an employment discrimination and wrongful termination case by Plaintiff Charles Cyr in which he alleges 13 causes of action against Defendant Eisenhower Medical Center as follows: 1) age discrimination, 2) gender discrimination, 3) failure to pay overtime wages, 4) failure to pay final wages, 5) failure to provide meal periods, 6) failure to provide rest periods, 7) failure to pay wages when due, 8) IIED, 9) wrongful termination, 10) breach of contract, 11) breach of the implied covenant of good faith
CYR VS EISENHOWER MEDICAL CENTER
PSC2004149
Oct 10, 2022
Riverside County, CA
This is an employment discrimination and wrongful termination case by Plaintiff Charles Cyr in which he alleges 13 causes of action against Defendant Eisenhower Medical Center as follows: 1) age discrimination, 2) gender discrimination, 3) failure to pay overtime wages, 4) failure to pay final wages, 5) failure to provide meal periods, 6) failure to provide rest periods, 7) failure to pay wages when due, 8) IIED, 9) wrongful termination, 10) breach of contract, 11) breach of the implied covenant of good faith
CYR VS EISENHOWER MEDICAL CENTER
PSC2004149
Oct 08, 2022
Riverside County, CA
This is an employment discrimination and wrongful termination case by Plaintiff Charles Cyr in which he alleges 13 causes of action against Defendant Eisenhower Medical Center as follows: 1) age discrimination, 2) gender discrimination, 3) failure to pay overtime wages, 4) failure to pay final wages, 5) failure to provide meal periods, 6) failure to provide rest periods, 7) failure to pay wages when due, 8) IIED, 9) wrongful termination, 10) breach of contract, 11) breach of the implied covenant of good faith
CYR VS EISENHOWER MEDICAL CENTER
PSC2004149
Oct 09, 2022
Riverside County, CA
It asserts causes of action for: failure to provide meal periods; failure to authorize and permit rest periods; failure to pay minimum wages; failure to pay overtime wages; failure to pay all wages due to discharged and quitting employees; failure to furnish accurate itemized wage statements; failure to maintain required records; failure to indemnify employees for necessary expenditures incurred in discharge of duties; unfair and unlawful business practices; and PAGA civil penalties.
WORLD CLASS DISTRIBUTION WAGE AND HOUR CASES
JCCP5158
May 11, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiff’s claims in this case were for failure to provide meal periods, failure to provide rest periods, failure to pay hourly wages, failure to provide accurate wage statements, failure to timely pay all final wages, and unfair competition. Two of the causes of action – the failure to pay hourly wages and the failure to timely pay all final wages – qualified under §218.5 as an “action brought for the nonpayment of wages, fringe benefits, or health and welfare or pension fund contributions[.]”
WALFRED L ESPESETH VS CALAMP CORP
BC683207
May 28, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Since the proceedings under CCP § 1822 had been completed, counsel failed to appear at the October 24, 2023 hearing. As a result, the Court issued its Order sanctioning counsel $250 for failure to appear, failure to file proof of service and failure to prosecute. Counsel for Petitioner now seeks relief from the October 24, 2023 Order that he pay $250 as a sanction.
23TRCP00265
Apr 04, 2024
Los Angeles County, CA
OSC Re: Sanctions for Failure to Appear 5.
CONSUMER ADVOCACY GROUP, INC. VS GREEN FARM MARKET
20STCV43207
Oct 27, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
BC708535, alleging causes of action for: (1) failure to provide meal periods; (2) failure to provide paid rest periods; (3) failure to pay wages; (4) failure to timely pay wages at termination/separation; (5) failure to timely pay vacation wages at termination; (6) failure to provide accurate wage statements; and (7) violation of UCL. The case was assigned to Judge Maren E. Nelson (Department SS17).
ANGEL CONTRERAS-TEO VS GOLDEN STATE FOODS CORP
BC722540
Feb 07, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Other Employment
Carl Karcher Enterprises, Inc., was filed on March 24, 2010, and alleges causes of action for wrongful forfeiture of vacation pay, failure to provide adequate meal periods, failure to provide adequate rest periods, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to pay all regular wages, failure to pay minimum wage, failure to pay wages at time of discharge or termination, failure to provide proper wage statements, failure to reimburse expenses, and unfair business practices.
CARL KARCHER WAGE AND HOUR CASES
CORD4537
Dec 14, 2010
Santa Barbara County, CA
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Please wait a moment while we load this page.