Labor Code Regulations in the Garment Industry

Useful Rulings on Labor Code Regulations in the Garment Industry

Recent Rulings on Labor Code Regulations in the Garment Industry

JUWON LEE VS POL CLOTHING, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, AND DOES 1 THROUGH 250,

Plaintiff’s operative Complaint alleges the following causes of action: (1) violation of Labor Code §§ 226.7, 512 (meal and rest breaks), (2) violation of Labor Code §§ 510-515, 1194 and 1198 (unpaid overtime), (3) violation of Labor Code § 2802 (reimbursements), (4) violation of Labor Code §§ 1182.12-1194 (minimum wage), (5) violation of Labor Code § 226(a) (inaccurate wage statements), (6) retaliation in violation of Labor Code § 6310 (by Plaintiff Lee only), (7) retaliation in violation of Labor Code §§ 98.6

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

JEANETTE FRANCE VS LOS ANGELES DEPT OF WATER AND POWER ET AL

Conversely, Defendant argues that Plaintiff continued to reference her Labor Code § 132 (a) claim, despite having previously dismissed these claims. Moreover, Defendant states that the discovery conducted was routine and that they are only requesting the fees and costs incurred in the motion for summary judgment. The Court finds that although Plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of material fact as to pretext, the complaint was not completely groundless or without a legal or factual basis.

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

TINA CHOI VS PBK AMERICA, A CALIFORNIS CORPORATION, ET AL.

Under Labor Code §2922, an employment having no specific term, may be terminated at the will of either party, established a presumption of at-will employment if the parties have made no express oral or written agreement specifying the length of employment or the grounds for termination. Under this cause of action, plaintiff alleges that she was wrongfully terminated without any reason and compensation after defendants “used her and took her capacity.”

  • Hearing

    Jun 23, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

RONALD BALANAG, ET AL. V. LAPTALO ENTERPRISES, INC., ET AL.

Finally, Labor Code section 2699, subdivision (l) provides that “[t]he superior court shall review and approve any penalties sought as part of a proposed settlement agreement pursuant to” PAGA. Seventy-five percent of any penalties recovered under PAGA go to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency (“LWDA”), leaving the remaining twenty-five percent for the aggrieved employees. (Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC (2014) 59 Cal.4th 348, 380.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 19, 2020

CASHCALL, INC. V. NICHOLSON

. (§ 706.050(b)(3); Labor Code, § 1182.12.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 09, 2020

PEDRO REZA VS MOA MOA INC

Code §§ 201, 1182.12, 1194, 1194.2, (9) failure to indemnify for necessary business expenses in violation of Labor Code § 2802, (10) failure to provide meal and rest breaks in violation of Labor Code §§ 226.7, 512, (11) failure to provide itemized wage and hour statements in violation of Labor Code §§ 226, et seq., (12) waiting time penalties (Labor Code §§ 201-203), (13) Private Attorney General’s Act (“PAGA”).

  • Hearing

    Mar 12, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

M ESTRADA, ET AL. VS SCARS OF THE MIND PICTURE COMPANY, ET AL.

The Complaint asserts causes of action for (1) violation of Labor Code section 203 – Continuing Wages, (2) violation of Labor Code section 203.1 – Wages by Check on Which Payment Refused, (3) violation of Labor Code sections 510 and 1194 – Failure to Pay Minimum Wage and Overtime, (4) violation of Labor Code section 226(a) – Failure to Provide Pay Stubs, (5) violation of the Unfair Competition Law, (6) violation of Labor Code section 226(b) – Failure to Provide Employment Records, (7) violation of Labor Code

  • Hearing

    Feb 28, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

SHENETTA D TONEY VS. LODI UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

“The [Labor Code 1102.5] non-FEHA cause of action asserted by Plaintiff does not involve a statute that expressly excepts an award of costs from the mandatory provisions of section 1032, subdivision (b), as does Government Code section 12965, subdivision (b).” (Roman v. BRE Properties, Inc. (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 1040, 1059.)

  • Hearing

    Feb 20, 2020

JUDITH TUZSON PAAL VS. PAL VICZIAN, ET AL.

The first cause of action was for negligence, but the plaintiff relied on the language of Labor Code § 4558 in alleging the claim instead of using the traditional elements of simple negligence. (Id.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 30, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

ARSALAN DAGHIGHI ASLI VS CHRISTIAN ROY ASHTON ET AL

This is not mandatory authority over this court, as it is a federal decision ruling on pleading standards in federal court procedure on an issue of substantive federal law (FLSA), while Asli’s claims here rely on the California Labor Code. (Complaint ¶¶ 43–49.) Moreover, the Complaint is adequately specific in this regard, because it alleges quite plainly, “During Plaintiff’s tenure with Defendants, Plaintiff never received payment for his employment.” (Complaint ¶ 45.)

  • Hearing

    Dec 12, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

ENRIQUE MIJARES VS. CINCINNATI INCORPORATED

Santa Cruz Pasta Factory (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 1711, 1713-1714.)

  • Hearing

    Dec 09, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

LALANI NAILAU V. SUSAN CLARKE, ET AL.

On April 24, 2018, Plaintiff filed the operative Complaint against defendants alleging causes of action for: (1) wrongful termination in violation of public policy; (2) retaliation in violation Labor Code § 1102.5; (3) retaliation in violation of Labor Code § 6310; (4) unpaid wages; (5) accrual of waiting time penalties pursuant to Labor Code § 203; (6) fraud; (7) negligent misrepresentation; and (8) defamation.

  • Hearing

    Dec 06, 2019

  • Judge

    Presiding

  • County

    Santa Clara County, CA

FINCLUSION LABS, INC. DBA WETRUST V. RON MEROM, ET AL.

Merom’s cross-complaint asserts the following causes of action: (1) Breach of Contract (2) Breach of the Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing (3) Breach of Fiduciary Duty (4) Conversion of Personal Property (5) Violation of California Labor Code (6) Declaration of Stock Ownership (7) Removal of Directors for Fraud and Dishonesty (8) Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy (9) Violation of Cal. Labor Code §2802 and Cal.

  • Hearing

    Nov 08, 2019

  • Judge

    Presiding

  • County

    Santa Clara County, CA

TONI BYERS VS UNITED STAFFING SOLUTIONS INC

Labor Code §§510, 1194); unfair business practices (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§17200, et seq.); and waiting time penalties (Cal. Labor Code §203). Plaintiff also brings a representative claim for civil penalties pursuant to the California Private Attorney General Act (“PAGA”), Labor Code §§2698, et seq.

  • Hearing

    Oct 22, 2019

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

RICHARD JAZMIN VS LA CANADA WEST INC., ET AL.

.; Violation of Labor Code – Rest, Meal Period (against LCW); Violation of Labor Code § 226, 1198.5 – Wage Statements (against LCW); and Violation of California Labor Code § 1102.5 – Whistleblower (against LCW). Defendants demur to the first, second, fourth, seventh, eighth, ninth, and twelfth causes of action. Legal Standard A demurrer for sufficiency tests whether the complaint states a cause of action. Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 747.

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2019

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

JOSE ALONZO VS GATOS TRANSPORT INC.

The FAC asserts these causes of action: 1st cause of action - Failure to Pay Minimum Wage/Agreed Upon Compensation (Labor Code §1194); 2nd cause of action - Failure to Maintain Time Records, Provide Itemized Wage Statements (Labor Code §226); 3rd cause of action - Failure to Pay all Wages Due Upon Discharge (Labor Code §202); 4th cause of action - Unlawful Deductions from Wages (Labor Code §221); 5th cause of action - Failure to Provide Paid Rest Breaks (Labor Code §226.7); 6th cause of action -

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2019

12 CORINTHIAN INTERNATIONAL WAGE AND HOUR

INTRODUCTION 26 These are two coordinated cases arising out of alleged Labor Code violations. The 27 Turner case is a putative class action.

  • Hearing

    Aug 30, 2019

RUDY MENDEZ HERNANDEZ VS WHEEL PROS LLC ET AL

.: BC698681 Hearing Date: August 20, 2019 [TENTATIVE]RULING RE: MOTIONS IN LIMINE Factual Background This is an action for employment discrimination and labor code violations. The First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) alleges as follows. Mendez Rudy Mendez Hernandez (“Mendez”) was an employee of Defendant Wheel Pros, LLC (“Wheel”) from 2002 to 2017. (FAC ¶ 6.) Mendez began to suffer from chronic back pain caused by repeated lifting of heavy aluminum billets for work. (FAC ¶ 7.)

  • Hearing

    Aug 20, 2019

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

WILLIE MENCHACA V. GOODWILL OF SILICON VALLEY, ET AL.

Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents and Request for Monetary Sanctions by Plaintiff Willie Menchaca Factual and Procedural Background This action filed by plaintiff Willie Menchaca (“Plaintiff”) against defendants Goodwill of Silicon Valley (“Goodwill”), Mason Simmons (“Simmons”), and Pablo Gaxiola (“Gaxiola”) (collectively, “Defendants”) arises from alleged employment discrimination and Labor Code violations.

  • Hearing

    Jul 25, 2019

  • Judge

    Presiding

  • County

    Santa Clara County, CA

SUMER CAMPA VS SLV INVESTMENT COMPANY LLC ET AL

In short, “Dynamex applied the ‘suffer or permit to work’ standard contained in the wage order without deciding what standard applied to non-wage-order claims, such as claims for reimbursement of fuel or tolls under Labor Code, section 2802.” (Garcia, supra, 28 Cal.App.5th at 571.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2019

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

JONATHAN SILVA VS THE CHEESECAKE FACTORY RESTAURANTS INC

On May 16, 2019, Plaintiff Jonathon Silva as an individual and on behalf of the State of California and all Aggrieved Employees (“Plaintiff’) filed the instant action against Defendant The Cheesecake Factory Restaurants, Inc. (“Defendant”) and Does 1 through 100. The Complaint asserts a sole cause of action for violation of California Labor Code § 2698, et seq. Trial is currently set for August 26, 2019.

  • Hearing

    Jul 01, 2019

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

JORDY GAEL GARCIA ET AL VS ASCENCION CATHOLIC SCHOOL ET AL

Factual Background This is an action for employment discrimination and labor code violations. The First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) alleges as follows. Plaintiff Rudy Mendez Hernandez (“Plaintiff”) was an employee of Defendant Wheel Pros, LLC (“Wheel”) from 2002 to 2017. (FAC ¶ 6.) Plaintiff began to suffer from chronic back pain caused by repeated lifting of heavy aluminum billets for work. (FAC ¶ 7.) Plaintiff compensated for this injury by from time to time laying on the factory floor. (FAC ¶ 7.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 20, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

RUDY MENDEZ HERNANDEZ VS WHEEL PROS LLC ET AL

Factual Background This is an action for employment discrimination and labor code violations. The First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) alleges as follows. Plaintiff Rudy Mendez Hernandez (“Plaintiff”) was an employee of Defendant Wheel Pros, LLC (“Wheel”) from 2002 to 2017. (FAC ¶ 6.) Plaintiff began to suffer from chronic back pain caused by repeated lifting of heavy aluminum billets for work. (FAC ¶ 7.) Plaintiff compensated for this injury by from time to time laying on the factory floor. (FAC ¶ 7.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 20, 2019

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

EVYANNE PHELPS VS. STEVEN MADDEN RETAIL INC

Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint ("FAC") alleges ten causes of action against Defendant for: (1) Unpaid Overtime (Labor Code §§ 510, 1198), (2) Unpaid Meal Period Premiums (Labor Code §§ 226.7, 512(a)), (3) Unpaid Rest Period Premiums (Labor Code § 226.7), (4) Unpaid Minimum Wages (Labor Code §§ 1194, 1197, 1197.1), (5) Final Wages not Timely Paid (Labor Code §§ 201, 202), (6) Non-Compliant Wage Statements (Labor Code § 226(a)), (7) Failure to Keep Requisite Payroll Records (Labor Code § 1174(a)), (8) Unreimbursed

  • Hearing

    Jun 06, 2019

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

HAMID VS. NIKE RETAIL SERVICES, INC.

Plaintiff’s 6th cause of action for Failure to Provide Paid Sick Days fails to the extent plaintiff seeks PAGA penalties based on violations of Labor Code §§245.5, 246, 246.5, 247, 247.5, 248.5 and 249, the only statutes plaintiff cites in this claim. None of them are listed in Labor Code §2699.5 as statutes on which a PAGA claim may be based.

  • Hearing

    May 10, 2019

1 2 3 4     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.