Wage and Hour Violations

Useful Rulings on Wage and Hour Violations

Recent Rulings on Wage and Hour Violations

226-250 of 3210 results

ENTSMINGER V. LOANDEPOT.COM, LLC

Moreover, as pointed out by Defendant in Reply, Plaintiff’s remaining causes of action are solely for wage-and-hour claims related to a small number of hours of work that Plaintiff allegedly performed while on leave. On these facts, the Court concludes that bifurcation is neither necessary nor appropriate; there is no reason to believe bifurcation will result in any genuine efficiencies, or that proceeding with trial absent bifurcation will confuse the trier of fact.

  • Hearing

    Mar 02, 2020

SOTO VS L I METAL SYSTEMS [E-FILE]

This is a putative class action alleging wage and hour violations by a company that "installs rain gutters and overhang systems in residential homes and buildings throughout Southern California." ROA 1, paragraph 4. The eight count complaint was filed in March of 2017, and was followed by the first amended complaint in May of 2017. ROA 10. Defendant answered in July of that year. ROA 12. At the due-course CMC in August of 2017, the court set the case for hearing on class certification in March of 2018.

  • Hearing

    Mar 02, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

FIESER VS BITCHIN INC [E-FILE]

This was a putative class action involving allegations of wage and hour violations. The complaint was filed in March of 2018, and was followed within days by the first amended complaint. ROA 8. Defendants answered seasonably, ROA 11-12, but later the parties stipulated to the filing of the second amended complaint (which added PAGA allegations). ROA 16-17. Defendants* answered the second amended complaint in July of 2018. ROA 24-25.

  • Hearing

    Mar 02, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

LEE WEBSTER V. PLATINUM PARKING MANAGEMENT, LLC, ET AL.

This is a class and Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) action on behalf of employees of defendants Platinum Parking Management, LLC, Platinum Parking Mgmt LLC, and/or Anthony Carchedi, 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

    Feb 28, 2020

FOAAD HANNA V. EQUINIX LLC, ET AL.

This is a putative wage and hour class and Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) action by employees of defendant Equinix LLC. The parties have reached a settlement, which the Court preliminarily approved in an order filed on September 24, 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

    Feb 28, 2020

SILVIA HERNANDEZ V. WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, ET AL.

This is a wage and hour class and Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) action by employees of defendant Wells Fargo Bank, National Association. The parties have reached a settlement, which the Court preliminarily approved in an order filed on September 24, 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

    Feb 28, 2020

IAN MCCRAY V. MARRIOTT HOTEL SERVICES, INC., ET AL.

This is a putative wage and hour class action arising from defendants Marriott Hotel Services, Inc. and SJMEC, Inc.’s alleged violations of the City of San Jose Minimum Wage Ordinance. Before the Court is defendants’ motion for summary judgment (or, alternatively, summary adjudication) on the ground that plaintiff’s collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”) contains a valid waiver of the Ordinance.

  • Hearing

    Feb 28, 2020

ALIVIA STRICKLIN V. FIRST ALARM SECURITY & PATROL, INC., ET AL.

Attorney Fees, Costs, and Incentive Award Plaintiffs seek a fee award of $2,416,666.67, or one-third of the gross settlement, which is not an uncommon contingency fee allocation in a wage and hour class action. This award is facially reasonable under the “common fund” doctrine, which allows a party recovering a fund for the benefit of others to recover attorney fees from the fund itself.

  • Hearing

    Feb 28, 2020

MELISSA D SANCHEZ VS SUK H TSANG ET AL

2011 and has been practicing law for more than eight years primarily in labor and employment law (Id. at ¶ 5); (5) his hourly rate is typically $350.00 per hour and that is the market rate for attorneys of his experience in the same geographic area (Id.); (6) he has litigated well over 300 wage-and-hour claims and has extensive experience representing employers and employees at trial and summary judgment motion proceedings (Id.); (7) when he substituted in this case for Defendants, Defendant Suk H.

  • Hearing

    Feb 28, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

MARINA TEVAN VS EXAMONE WORLD WIDE, INC.,, ET AL.

By misclassifying Plaintiff as an independent contractor and treating her accordingly, Defendants violated numerous wage and hour laws. LEGAL STANDARD CCP section 2031.320 sets forth the conditions to make a motion to compel compliance with an inspection demand.

  • Hearing

    Feb 28, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

TAHERI VS. CANZONE

"Employer" under the Wage Order (15-2001) is defined as: "A person who directly or indirectly, ...employs or exercises control over the wages, hours or working conditions of any person." Plaintiffs allege: ...Jamal Habib, the Habib Trust and defendants Canzone and DOES 1-10, inclusive, exercised control of the plaintiffs' wages, hours and working conditions so as to be plaintiffs' employers under the applicable California Industrial Wage Order.

  • Hearing

    Feb 27, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

TAHERI VS. CANZONE

"Employer" under the Wage Order (15-2001) is defined as: "A person who directly or indirectly, ...employs or exercises control over the wages, hours or working conditions of any person." Plaintiffs allege: ...Jamal Habib, the Habib Trust and defendants Canzone and DOES 1-10, inclusive, exercised control of the plaintiffs' wages, hours and working conditions so as to be plaintiffs' employers under the applicable California Industrial Wage Order.

  • Hearing

    Feb 27, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

DYLAN R. CADENA VS ALLIANCE INSPECTION MANAGEMENT, LLC, ET AL.

and hour violations for non-exempt employees, facts supporting the contention this action is unmanageable, and defendant’s relationship to the other defendants.

  • Hearing

    Feb 27, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

PAUL VOGT VS FRANK ALFARO ET AL.

Sanctions are granted against Plaintiff in the sum of $860.00 (5 hours x $160.00/hour plus a 60.00 filing fee). The motion for issue sanctions is denied. The trial setting conference scheduled for February 27, 2020 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 11B will remain. Ross 2/26/2020

  • Hearing

    Feb 26, 2020

SANDY DIAZ VS PRIME HEALTHCARE SERVICES-SAN DIMAS, LLC, ET AL.

Aggrieved Employees, other than Plaintiff, will not be deemed to have released any individual wage and hour claims, or any claims other than PAGA claims, by virtue of this settlement. (¶23.)

  • Hearing

    Feb 25, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

LOPEZ VS PNS STORES INC

This is a wage and hour/discrimination case arising from plaintiff's employment at the "Big Lots" store in Oceanside between 2003 and June of 2018. The operative first amended complaint was filed in August of 2019. ROA 7. Defendants have answered. ROA 11. Presently, two Ohio lawyers, Harris and Hoffman, seek leave to appear pro hac vice. ROA 29-40. They have local counsel in California. The motions are unopposed.

  • Hearing

    Feb 24, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

ENTSMINGER V. LOANDEPOT.COM, LLC

The only claims remaining in the case are Plaintiff’s CFRA and wage and hour claims. The discovery sought is no longer relevant to the remaining 6th, 7th, and 8th causes of action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2017.010.) Defendant is ordered to give notice, unless notice is waived by all parties at the hearing.

  • Hearing

    Feb 24, 2020

ADRIENNE ROCK, AN INDIVIDUAL VS SAKS FIFTH AVENUE, INC., A CORPORATION, ET AL.

Plaintiff also alleges wage and hour violations. Plaintiff moves for relief from failure to timely post jury fees and the resulting waiver of jury trial. ANALYSIS Motion For Relief From Failure To Post Jury Fees (Waiver of Jury Trial) Plaintiff moves for relief from failure to timely post jury fees and the resulting waiver of jury trial. Plaintiff argues that the failure to timely pay jury fees was inadvertent, and permitting Plaintiff to proceed to a jury trial would not prejudice Defendant.

  • Hearing

    Feb 21, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

DELIA PERDUE ET AL VS MOBILE MODULAR DEVELOPMENT INC ET AL

hour statements under Labor Code sections 226, 226.3; (12) failure to maintain payroll records under Labor Code sections 226, 1174, 1174.5; (13) failure to pay minimum compensation under Labor Code section 1194; (14) failure to pay overtime compensation under Labor Code sections 510, 1194; (15) unpaid wages of deceased spouse under Probate Code section 13600; (16) unfair competition under Business and Professions Code section 17200.

  • Hearing

    Feb 21, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

JAVIER FUENTES GONZALEZ VS DREAM DWELL, INC, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

In this wage and hour action, Plaintiff requests entry of default judgment against Defendant in the amount of: Damages: $230,440 (demand of complaint) Costs: $738.40 Interest: $27,147 Attorney Fees: $12,250 Total: $270,575.40 (matches JUD-100) The court denies the request for the following reasons, without prejudice to a renewed request. Compliance with CRC 3.1800 Request for entry of default judgment is properly made on form CIV-100. 1.

  • Hearing

    Feb 21, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

THEREASA CARROZZELLA VS. BASALITE CONCRETE PRODUCTS, LLC

Plaintiffs have submitted evidence that class counsel has extensive experience in employment class action law, including significant experience in wage-and-hour class action litigation. Both parties' counsel were capable of assessing the strengths and weaknesses of the claims against Defendant and the benefits of the proposed settlement under the circumstances of the case and in the context of a private, consensual settlement agreement.

  • Hearing

    Feb 20, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

MONSTER ENERGY COMPANY VS COHEN

However, unlike, for example, employment laws governing the wage and hour practices within Georgia, which the State of Georgia would have a strong interest in when it comes to how workers are treated within its jurisdiction, trade secret protections are much less localized in nature. It is necessary at this stage to note that the issue presently before this Court is one of choosing the appropriate forum – not choosing the applicable substantive law.

  • Hearing

    Feb 20, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

MONSTER ENERGY COMPANY VS COHEN

However, unlike, for example, employment laws governing the wage and hour practices within Georgia, which the State of Georgia would have a strong interest in when it comes to how workers are treated within its jurisdiction, trade secret protections are much less localized in nature. It is necessary at this stage to note that the issue presently before this Court is one of choosing the appropriate forum – not choosing the applicable substantive law.

  • Hearing

    Feb 20, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

MIGUEL ANGEL CUEVA VS. PACIFIC AMERICAN FISH CO.

“During Plaintiff’s employment with Defendant, Plaintiff was not provided rest periods for work periods of four (4) hours or more, and was not provided with meal periods for work days in excess of five (5) and/or ten (10) hours, and was not compensated a one (1) hour wage in lieu of said rest and/or meal periods.” (SAC ¶20.) “Plaintiff was constantly harassed by his supervisors and other employees.

  • Hearing

    Feb 20, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

  • Judge

    Lori Ann Fournier or Olivia Rosales

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

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. Plaintiff and Defendant have reached a class-action settlement, in which Defendant has agreed to a non-reversionary gross settlement amount of $300,000, memorialized in a Stipulation of Settlement. (Lidman Decl., Exh. 1 (the “Settlement Agreement”).)

  • Hearing

    Feb 19, 2020

  « first    1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ... 129     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.