Wage and Hour Violations

Useful Rulings on Wage and Hour Violations

Recent Rulings on Wage and Hour Violations

SHEILA I¿IGUEZ VS BENIHANA MARINA CORP.

Defendant characterizes both actions as actions for the same primary right – the recovery of PAGA civil penalties for alleged wage and hour violations by the same employer for the same aggrieved restaurant employees’ benefit. Defendant, however, has not shown that the two actions have the potential to result in conflicting judgments. While both actions are on behalf of the State of California, both suits seek penalties for different Labor Code violations.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

DOMINGO DE LA CRUZ VS LA CORONA RESTAURANT, A BUSINESS ENTITY OF UNKNOWN FORM, ET AL.

On May 22, 2020, Plaintiff Domingo De La Cruz commenced this action against Defendants La Corona Restaurant and Horacio Reynoso dba Tacos Corona for (1) failure to pay wages; (2) failure to pay overtime compensation; (3) failure to provide meal and rest periods; (4) failure to provide itemized wage and hour statements; (5) waiting time penalties; and (6) unfair competition. On October 13, 2020, Law Offices of Ramin R. Younessi, A.P.L.C and Ramin R.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

ERIKA COLMENARES VS LAS PALMITAS FRESH FRUIT INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

and hour laws – unpaid overtime wages; (13) violation of wage and hour laws – waiting time penalties; (14) failure to provide accurate wage statements / failure to keep records; (15) unfair competition in violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200; and (16) penalties and personal liability for violation of Labor Code section 558.1.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

MARIA DE LOS ANGELES RAMIREZ VS PROLAND MANAGEMENT COMPANY L

In opposition, Plaintiff contends that Defendants’ motion must be denied as to this and each of Plaintiff’s wage and hour claims because Defendants failed to keep records of Plaintiff’s work hours. (Opposition, 14-16.) As such, Plaintiff contends that her own testimony about hours she worked is sufficient to defeat Defendants’ motion for summary adjudication as to each wage and hour claim. (Id.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

CVS STORES WAGE AND HOUR CASES

Dept. 12 SSC JCCP 4975 CVS Stores Wage and Hour Cases Nov. 24, 2020 Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Settlement Court’s observations and requirements: (1) Counsel should file the Consolidated Complaint with the court. (2) Modify the Release: a. The effective date of the release should be the date on which the Defendant fully funds the settlement. b.

  • Hearing

EPIFANIO ARMENTA ET AL VS STUART CARROLL ET AL

Defendants assert that, to the extent Hernandez has any legitimate wage and hour claims against Stuart Carroll, they are separate and distinct from the wage and hour claims pursued by the remaining plaintiffs. Defendants further assert that none of the causes of action state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against defendant Stuart Carroll, as opposed to RJ Carroll.

  • Hearing

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

TONY SPEARS VS WALGREEN PHARMACY SERVICES MIDWEST, AN ILLINOIS CORPORATION, ET AL.

The 5th cause of action for overtime violations, 6th cause of action for rest period violations, 7th cause of action for meal period violations, 8th cause of action for failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, and 9th cause of action for failure to timely pay all wages due upon separation of employment are time barred by the three-year statute of limitations. CCP §338.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

RODRIGUEZ VS. DYNAMIC AUTO IMAGES, INC.

In any event, the dates and hours of Plaintiff’s employment and her hourly rate are obviously relevant to her wage-and-hour claims. Third party privacy: These requests only seek admissions about Plaintiff, not any third party. In light of the foregoing, Plaintiff is ordered to provide code-compliant responses, without objection, by December 18, 2020.

  • Hearing

ALFRED LAX V. ROTO-ROOTER SERVICES COMPANY, ET AL.

This is a putative class action on behalf of employees of defendant Roto-Rooter Services Company, alleging a range of wage and hour violations. Before the Court is plaintiff’s motion for preliminary approval of a settlement, which is unopposed. I.

  • Hearing

JIMY JUAREZ V. CREATIVE MANUFACTURING SOLUTIONS, INC., ET AL.

Plaintiff’s claims all arise from CMS’s wage and hour practices applied to the similarly-situated class members. As to the second factor, The typicality requirement is meant to ensure that the class representative is able to adequately represent the class and focus on common issues.

  • Hearing

SVETLANA KRAVCHENKO, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL. VS PERLA LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.

Factual Background This is a wage and hour action. The First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) alleges as follows. From April 1, 2015 – June 19, 2018, Plaintiffs Svetlana Kravchenko (“Kravchenko”) and Alexander Shaferman (“Shaferman”) were non-exempt employees of Defendants Pearla, LLC (“Pearla”) and Mars Investors, LLC (“Mars”), where they worked as on-site resident apartment managers pursuant to an agreement. (FAC ¶¶ 1, 9.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

RIVERA VS. ALLCOM ELECTRIC, INC.

These standard wage and hour claims do not arise out of or relate to Plaintiff’s termination of employment. Since the 7th COA for violation of the unfair competition law are derivative of the prior claims, the 7th COA also falls outside of the scope of the arbitration provision. As for the 8th COA, Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s PAGA claims can be compelled to arbitration because the FAA preempts state law. Plaintiff’s PAGA claim cannot be arbitrated. Iskanian v.

  • Hearing

ABREGO V. STERICYCLE, INC.

(“Stericycle”) arising out of alleged wage and 24 hour violations.

  • Hearing

TYLER V. WESTERN MANAGEMENT, LLC

Of the 25 remaining net settlement, 75% will be allocated to the wage and hour class and 25% will be 26 allocated to the FCRA class. (Id. at ¶17.) 27 The settlement agreement states that funds from checks not cashed for 180 days after 28 distribution to a class member will be sent to the Controller of the State of California to be held 1 pursuant to the Unclaimed Property Law for the benefit of that class member. (Settlement 2 Agreement, ¶ 45.)

  • Hearing

PAULINE ZAMUDIO VS DYER'S GARAGE DOORS, ET AL.

Plaintiff then argue substantive unconscionability because the arbitration agreement requires Plaintiff to trade the uncomplicated Berman Hearing process for an unknown arbitration process for the wage and hour claims. However, Plaintiff has mischaracterized or narrowly read the provision placed into issue.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

MUNOZ VS SAN DIEGO BEST WINDOW COMPANY INC

Numerous workers employed by a local provider of synthetic turf were not paid as required by California's unapologetically pro-employee wage and hour laws. This gave rise to some 16 lawsuits, which are described more fully in the court's Statement of Decision (SOD) filed June 3, 2019 in the lead case, Case No. 2018-02348 (ROA 92). The court incorporates the SOD for background purposes. The present case was a companion case to the lead case, and was stayed while the lead case was prepared and tried.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

MUNOZ VS SAN DIEGO BEST WINDOW COMPANY INC

Numerous workers employed by a local provider of synthetic turf were not paid as required by California's unapologetically pro-employee wage and hour laws. This gave rise to some 16 lawsuits, which are described more fully in the court's Statement of Decision (SOD) filed June 3, 2019 in the lead case, Case No. 2018-02348 (ROA 92). The court incorporates the SOD for background purposes. The present case was a companion case to the lead case, and was stayed while the lead case was prepared and tried.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

ROMAN JACKSON VS AIRGAS USA, LLC, ET AL.

.; Fraud; Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; Violation of California Labor Code – rest, meal period, overtime; Violation of California Labor Code § 1102.5 – Whistleblower; Violation of California Labor Code §§ 226, 1198.5 – Wage Statements; and Violation of California Labor Code § 980.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

ISAI CHILEL, AN INDIVIDUAL VS HIROSHI KAWASHIMI, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL.

On February 19, 2019, Plaintiff Isai Chilel filed a wage and hour class action against Defendants Sushi California, Inc. and Hiroshi Kawashimi. The Complaint alleges causes of action for: (1) Civil Penalties Under Labor Code § 226.3; (2) Civil Penalties Under Labor Code § 558; (3) Civil Penalties Under Labor Code § 1197.1; and (4) Civil Penalties Under Labor Code § 2699.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

PAGOULATOS V. COASTHILLS CREDIT UNION

She alleges the following wage and hour violations: (1) failure to pay minimum and straight time wages (Lab. Code §§ 204, 1194, 1194.2, and 1197); (2) failure to pay overtime compensation (Lab. Code §§ 1194 and 1198); (3) failure to provide meal periods (Lab. Code §§ 226.7, 512); (4) failure to authorize and permit rest breaks (Lab. Code §§ 226.7); (5) failure to timely pay final wages at termination (Lab. Code §§ 201-203); (6) failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements (Lab.

  • Hearing

FELICIA MCCARRON VS SISYPHIAN, LLC DBA XPOSED GENTLEMEN'S CLUB, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant committed various wage and hour violations against her.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

WORTHINGTON CONSTRUCTION, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS STATE OF CALIFORNIA INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

DLSE Civil Wage and Penalty Assessment The DLSE investigated Petitioner’s involvement with the construction project. (Sim Decl. Exh. 4 [Penalty Review and Audit].) On January 25, 2017, the DSLE issued a Civil Wage and Penalty Assessment (the “Assessment”) against Petitioner in the amount of $3,450 based on $150 per violation for the 23 days the journeymen Landscape Laborers worked on the project. (Worthington Decl. Exh. 1 at 1; see also Sim Decl. Exh. 3 [copy of the Assessment].)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

HSIN-YU WANG VS XIAOQIN KELLY LING, ET AL.

For example, Plaintiff does not set forth information pertaining to the number and severity of the employment law violations, nor as to Defendant’s maximum potential exposure to liability. Plaintiff notes in the motion, and Plaintiff’s counsel declares, that “[d]uring discovery Dling produced documents showing that after terminating Plaintiff, it entered into settlement agreements with its remaining employees to compensate them for wage and hour violations.” (Madnick Decl. ¶ 3.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

FABIAN VILLARREAL VS CANALI TRADING LLC., A NEW YORK LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.

This is a wage and hour lawsuit. Attorney James Drozdowski applies for admission pro hac vice to appear on behalf of Defendants Canali Trading, LLC, Canali Retail, Inc., and Canali U.S.A., Inc. TENTATIVE RULING The hearing on Attorney James Drozdowsi’s applications to appear pro hac vice is CONTINUED to December 17, 2020 at 8:30 a.m.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

MARCUS MARQUEZ VS SHAMMAS INVESTMENT LLC

Special Interrogatory No. 7 “If any of YOUR wage and hour employment practices that are the subject of this action are currently or have been during the last ten (10) years litigated in any CIVIL ACTION, DESCRIBE each such action.” (SROG No. 7.) “Defendant further responds as follows: Defendant has never employed any employees. Defendant’s wage and hour employment practices have not been litigated in any civil action, because Defendant has never had any wage and hour employment practices.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 143     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.