Wage and Hour Violations

Useful Rulings on Wage and Hour Violations

Recent Rulings on Wage and Hour Violations

CHRISTINA MENDOZA V. PLANNED PARENTHOOD MAR MONTE, INC., ET AL.

., alleging a number of wage and hour violations. The parties have reached a settlement, which the Court preliminarily approved in an order filed on February 25, 2020. The factual and procedural background of the action and the Court’s analysis of the settlement and settlement class are set forth in that order. Before the Court is plaintiff’s motion for final approval of the settlement and for approval of her attorney fees, costs, and service award. Plaintiff’s motion is unopposed. II.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

CRUZ, ET AL. V. HOLDER CONSTRUCTION GROUP, LLC

The court now issues its tentative ruling as 21 follows: of 2004 (“PAGA”) based on various alleged wage and hour violations. The Complaint, filed on 25 January 29, 2019, sets forth a single PAGA cause of action. Reynolds, William Saldivar, and Xiang Yang (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) move for approval of 28 the settlement. 1 II. LEGAL STANDARD 2 A superior court must review and approve any PAGA settlement. (Lab. Code, § 2699, 3 subd. (l)(2).)

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

JOSE SOTO V. ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS INC., ET AL.

., alleging wage statement violations. Plaintiff Jose Soto also brings individual claims for harassment, discrimination, and related causes of action. The parties have reached a settlement of the class claims, which the Court preliminarily approved in an order filed on December 17, 2019. The factual and procedural background of the action and the Court’s analysis of the settlement and settlement class are set forth in that order.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

ARTURO REYES V. IVARY MANAGEMENT CO., ET AL.

This is a putative class and Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) action on behalf of employees of defendant Ivary Management Co. dba Renaissance Stone Care & Waterproofing, alleging a number of wage and hour violations. Before the Court is plaintiff’s motion for preliminary approval of a settlement, which is unopposed. I.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

JUAN VELASQUEZ-ALFARO V. TREVIS BERRY TRANSPORTATION, ET AL.

This is a putative class and Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) action on behalf of employees of defendant Trevis Berry Transportation, alleging wage statement violations. The parties have reached a settlement, which the Court preliminarily approved in an order filed on December 17, 2019. The factual and procedural background of the action and the Court’s analysis of the settlement and settlement class are set forth in that order.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

PAULINA VEGA VS JPMORGAN CHASE BANK NA

by Class Members during the Class Period (approximately 525,000), the estimated percentage of pay periods with off-the-clock violations (conservatively estimating 80%), the duration of the off-the-clock work per pay period with violations (conservatively estimating 6 minutes), and the average hourly rate of pay ($17.75): 525,000 pay periods x 80% × 0.1 hour x $17.75 = $745,500.00

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

WATTS VS T.R.L. SYSTEMS INCORPORATED

Maldonado held that the plaintiff could not pursue § 226 penalties because the wage statement included all hours worked: “Wage statements should include the hours worked at each rate and the wages earned. In a perfect world, the first numbers will calculate out to the second. But when there is a wage and hour violation, the hours worked will differ from what was truly earned.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

CARDOSO VS. DATA CLEAN CORPORATION

It explains that a total settlement amount “is intended to pay both the wage and hour class claims . . . as well as the individual [harassment] claims.” (Ibid.) The redacted version of this agreement redacts the total amount, not simply the amount devoted to the harassment claims.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

LOPEZ VS BUFFALO WILD WINGS INTERNATIONAL, INC.

Factual Background While this case is principally a putative wage-and-hour class action involving Buffalo Wild Wings restaurants, Lopez also brings individual claims arising from alleged mistreatment by Shaffer, his former supervisor. On February 13, 2020, the Court lifted the stay on discovery as to Lopez’s individual claims. (ROA 359.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

JIANG QI VS BLUESTAR EXPRESS GROUP INC.

Background Wage/hour violations lawsuit. On June 29, 2016, Plaintiff Jiang Qi (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint, asserting causes of action against Defendants Bluestar Express Group Inc. (“Bluestar”), Yidan Zhang (“Yidan”) and Does 1-20 for: 1. Failure to Pay Minimum Hourly Wages and Overtime Wages [Cal. Labor Code §§ 510, 1194] 2. Failure to Provide Meal and Rest Periods [Cal. Labor Code § 226.7] 3. Knowing and Intentional Failure to Comply with Accurate Itemized Employee Wage Statement Provisions [Cal.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

SIANO VS. PUFFY DELIVERY, INC.

Payroll records and similar documents are a routine part of class certification discovery in wage and hour matters. 2. CCP § 1985.6 Stone next relies on CCP § 1985.6, which governs the production of employee records in response to a subpoena duces tecum and requires employees be given notice and an opportunity to move to quash before records are turned over. It argues the “principle behind Section 1985.6” would best be served by requiring a Belaire-West process here. (Opp. at p. 9.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

WILSON VS. MUFG UNION BANK, N.A.

Requests #2-6 and 8-23 seek documents directly relevant to Plaintiff’s wage and hour claims. Defendant’s objections are without merit. As an example, Request #2 seeks documents given by Defendant to Plaintiff. Among Defendant’s many objections are objections based on attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine. These objections cannot apply to documents given by Defendant to Plaintiff.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

ESTHER ISAAC, ET AL. VS ELWYN CALIFORNIA, ET AL.

Notably, in the Opposition to the amended motion, Defendant argues that, by virtue of their failure to opt out, Plaintiffs were included in the class action settlement in the Garcia class action which resolved their wage and hour claims. Additionally, there is no explanation as to the circumstances giving rise to the need to name new Defendant Cesar Gomez in this lawsuit. (Amended Usude Decl., ¶ 13.) Moreover, there are currently two motions for summary judgment set to be heard on August 11, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

BRETT SMITH V. KENNEDY MANAGEMENT SERVICES

Brett Smith, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated (“Plaintiff”), filed this wage and hour action against Kennedy Management Services, Inc. (“Defendant”) on December 7, 2017. The matter was settled after the parties attended mediation; and the Court preliminarily approved the settlement in February 2020. Plaintiff has now filed a Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement, Class Representative’s Service Award, and Attorneys’ Fees and Costs. No opposition has been filed.

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2020

PHILIP BRUNO VS SWITCH CREATIVE GROUP, INC, ET AL.

As the Individual Defendants correctly posit, their liability for wage and hour law violations rests on whether they are deemed “other person[s] acting on behalf of” Switch within the meaning of this statute. Plaintiff alleges that they are. According to Plaintiff, Individual Defendants are owners, officers, and managing agents of Switch. (FAC ¶¶ 3-4, 17.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

GARY WRIGHT VS. BIOPRODUCTION GROUP, INC. A CALFORNIA CORPORATION

Here, Respondent seeks fees related to preparation of a complaint against Petitioner for breach of fiduciary duty that was never filed (2.3 hours), and correspondence to opposing counsel regarding payment of the penalty (.1 hour). These are not fees that are related to the appeal itself. Accordingly, the Court will reduce the attorney's fees at the outset by $960.00 (2.4 hours x $400/hour billable rate).

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Enforcement

MARIA GARCIA MARTINEZ VS 800 DEGREES, LLC, ET AL.

The Complaint asserts causes of action for: Failure to Pay Minimum Wage (Cal. Lab. Code § 1197); Failure to Compensate for All Hours Worked (Cal. Lab. Code § 1198); Failure to Pay Overtime Compensation (Cal. Lab. Code § 1198); Failure to Pay Meal Period Compensation (Cal. Lab. Code § 226.7); Failure to Pay Rest Period Compensation (Cal. Lab. Code § 226.7); Failure to Furnish Accurate Wage and Hour Statements (Lab. Code §§ 226); Failure to Comply with Cal. Lab. Code § 351; Statutory Penalties (Cal.

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

MARIA MAGALLON VS CEDARS-SINAI MEDICAL CENTER

The Court stated: “Significantly, an employee’s ‘regular rate of pay’ for purposes of . . . section 510 and the [Industrial Welfare Commission] wage orders is not the same as the employee’s straight time rate (i.e., his or her normal wage rate). Regular rate of pay, which can change from pay period to pay period, includes adjustments to the straight time rate, reflecting, among other things, shift differentials and the per-hour value of any nonhourly compensation the employee has earned.” (Id. At p. 554.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS, LOCAL 3, AFL-CIO VS. SACRAMENTO REGIONAL TRANSIT DISTRICT

grant annual wage increases to OE3 employees. (Pet., Exh. 2.) Specifically, Booth maintained, “The wage increases would not extend in perpetuity once the PRP was terminated. Rather, the wage increases would be subject to negotiation because they were subject to the continuing existence of the then current PRP. This determination follows the reasoning in a 2016 decision from the 8th Circuit in the matter of Finley Hospital v. NLRB.” (Id.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 07, 2020

SYLVIA NOLAND VS JOSE LUIS NAZAR

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants committed unfair and unlawful business practices via the previously discussed wage and hour violations. Thirteenth Cause of Action, Private Attorney General Action (“PAGA”): OVERRULED PAGA was enacted to ensure employers comply with state labor laws and permits aggrieved employees, acting as private attorneys general or on their own behalf, to recover civil penalties for Labor Code violations. Iskanian v. CLS Transp. Los Angeles, LLC (2014) 59 Cal.4th 348, 379–380.

  • Hearing

    Jul 07, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

BRIAN ZERBA VS KILI ANDERSON ET AL

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Kili Anderson, an individual dba The Body Bakery[1] RESPONDING PARTY(S): Plaintiff Brian Zerba PROOF OF SERVICE: CASE HISTORY: STATEMENT OF FACTS Plaintiff alleges wage and hour violations against Defendants. Defendant Kili Anderson, an individual dba The Body Bakery demurs to the First Amended Complaint.

  • Hearing

    Jul 07, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

ENCARNACION HERNANDEZ VS PRINCESS WINDOWS LLC ET AL

In opposition, Defendants contend that the amount requested is per se unreasonable as this was a garden-variety wage and hour matter. Defendants further contend that “the Court should reduce any award on the ground that the amount of time Plaintiff's attorneys claim they spent, and their hourly rates, are unreasonable. (Opposition p.5:4-5.) The trial court has broad authority to determine the amount of a reasonable fee. (PLCM Group, Inc. v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1084, 1095.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 07, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

DELIA PERDUE ET AL VS MOBILE MODULAR DEVELOPMENT INC ET AL

hour statements under Labor Code sections 226, 226.3; (9) failure to maintain payroll records under Labor Code sections 226, 1174, 1174.5; (10) failure to pay minimum compensation under Labor Code section 1194; (11) failure to pay overtime compensation under Labor Code sections 510, 1194; and (12) unfair competition under Business and Professions Code section 17200.

  • Hearing

    Jul 07, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

ANGIOLINA DERENZIN ET AL VS HAWTHORNE INTERNATIONA CORP

By way of background, on September 6, 2017, Plaintiffs and Plaintiff Angiolina Derenzin (“Derenzin”), who is not a party to the instant motion, filed their complaint for damages against Defendant for various wage and hour violations, as well as for violations of the FEHA.

  • Hearing

    Jul 07, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

PAULINE COLEMAN POWELL VS ST. JOSEPH'S MEDICAL CENTER, AN ENTITY, FORM UNKNOWN ET AL.

Plaintiff’s complaint alleges, inter alia, wage and hour violations. Plaintiff seeks a further response to Special Interrogatory 2, of Set One, which seeks pre-certification discovery of the identity and contact information for all ‘hourly-paid, non-exempt’ former or current employees who worked for Defendant on or after August 27, 2015. Code Civ. Proc. §2030.300(a), (d).

  • Hearing

    Jul 07, 2020

  • Judge

    George J. Abdallah

  • County

    San Joaquin County, CA

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 125     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.