Wage and Hour Violations

Useful Rulings on Wage and Hour Violations

Recent Rulings on Wage and Hour Violations

26-50 of 3210 results

NUTRA NOW, INC. V. DIAL RESPONSE

Alliantgroup, L.P. (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 141, 147 [forum selection clause was unenforceable as against public policy because it purported to waive the unwaivable wage and hour protections the Labor Code upon which plaintiff’s claims were based].)

  • Hearing

    Jul 30, 2020

TYRONE ANDERSON, ET AL. V. THE BERRY MAN, INC. ET AL.

Plaintiffs allege wage and hour violations, including unpaid minimum wages and overtime, failure to provide meal and rest periods, failure provide accurate wage statements, and failure to reimburse for business expenses. Plaintiffs seek penalties and damages under the Labor Code, the Business and Professions Code, and the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA). Now before the Court is Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a third amended complaint (TAC).

  • Hearing

    Jul 29, 2020

MARSHA LYONS VS OFFICE DEPOT, INC., ET AL.

Code §§ 510, 1194, 1198; IWC Wage Order No. 4-2001]; Failure to Pay Meal Period Compensation [Cal. Lab. Code §§ 226.7, 512, 1198; IWC Wage Order No. 4-2001]; Failure to Pay Rest Period Compensation [Cal. Lab. Code §§ 226.7, 1198; IWC Wage Order No. 4-2001]; Failure to Furnish Accurate Wage and Hour Statements [Cal. Lab. Code § 226]; Waiting Time Penalties [Cal. Lab.

  • Hearing

    Jul 29, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

JUAN AMAYA VS PITNEY BOWES PRESORT SERVICES INC

Counsel is experienced in wage-and-hour class action litigation. (Moss Decl., ¶ 75.) Therefore, the settlement agreement is entitled to a presumption of fairness.

  • Hearing

    Jul 29, 2020

VENICE VALENCIA VS ESTATE OF TAJI ILBEGI ET AL

This does not allege, as Valencia insists, that Cross-Complainants request damages related to the underlying wage and hour complaint. This simply alleges facts surrounding her motive, and does not request damages based on Valencia’s wage and hour complaint, such as attorneys fees or costs associated with the suit.

  • Hearing

    Jul 28, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

SHERLY SANTOS VS TEMPLE PARK CONVALESCENT HOSPITAL, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendants alleging causes of action for: (1) discrimination based upon pregnancy; (2) retaliation; (3) failure to take all reasonable steps to prevent discrimination and retaliation; (4) intentional infliction of emotional distress; (5) violation of rest period law; (6) violation of wage and hour laws—waiting time penalties; and (7) unfair competition in violation of California Business and Professions Code, Section 17200 et seq.

  • Hearing

    Jul 27, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

procedural history Madel filed the Complaint on December 23, 2019, alleging eleven causes of action: Breach of contract Breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing Specific performance Fraud Conversion Violation of Corporations Code § 212(a) Failure to pay wages in timely manner Failure to furnish accurate wage and hour statements Failure to maintain accurate payroll records Declaratory relief On March 9, 2020, Defendants filed the instant Demurrer and Motion to Strike.

  • Hearing

    Jul 27, 2020

DEIDRE GAVIN VS ORANGE TWIST, LLC, ET AL.

Plaintiff’s whistleblower claim does not involve any other sort of wage and hour violations. Plaintiff’s other FEHA claims in arbitration are also not based on any other wage and hour violations, and do not contain any allegations relating to the wage and hour claims alleged in the PAGA lawsuit.

  • Hearing

    Jul 27, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

BOCHENEK VS M2 MEDIA GROUP LLC

In wage and hour cases where a party seeks class certification based on allegations that the employer consistently imposed a uniform policy or de facto practice on class members, the party must still demonstrate that the illegal effects of this conduct can be proven efficiently and manageably within a class setting. (Brinker, at p. 1033; Dailey v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 974, 989.) "After a class has been certified, the court's obligation to manage individual issues does not disappear.

  • Hearing

    Jul 27, 2020

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

ARMANDO NUNEZ ET AL VS ROTOCO INC ET AL

The present case is distinguishable from Kho as defendants do not seek to enforce the arbitration agreements to bar plaintiffs from filing their wage and hour claims with the Labor Commissioner, where Berman procedures are available. Rather, defendants seek to enforce the arbitration agreements to bar plaintiffs from filing their wage and hour claims in the superior court.

  • Hearing

    Jul 24, 2020

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

ELIZABETH MERRITT V. HOUZZ INC., ET AL.

., 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. Factual and Procedural Background As alleged in the operative complaint, Houzz is an online platform based in Palo Alto that sells retail home furnishings, promotes the exchange of interior design ideas, and connects professional interior designers with clients. (Complaint, ¶¶ 2, 10.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 24, 2020

SHANNON SANCHEZ, ET AL. V. EXAMONE WORLD WIDE, INC., ET AL.

This is a putative class and Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) action on behalf of medical examiners for defendants ExamOne World Wide, Inc. and Quest Diagnostics Incorporated, alleging a number of wage and hour violations. The parties have reached a settlement, which the Court preliminarily approved in an order filed on January 17, 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.

  • Hearing

    Jul 24, 2020

CHARMIE RUFFY V. ISLAND HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT, INC., ET AL.

These consolidated putative wage and hour class and representative actions arise from alleged misclassification of employees by defendants Island Hospitality Management, Inc. and Island Hospitality Management, LLC (collectively, “Island”), as well as alleged wage statement violations. The parties have reached a settlement, which the Court preliminarily approved in an order filed on October 22, 2019.

  • Hearing

    Jul 24, 2020

QINGYU ZHANG VS. JIANG QI, ET AL

In an underlying action (KC068561), Defendants (with Qi as plaintiff and Chu as his attorney) brought suit against Bluestar Express Group, Inc. and Yidan Zhang for various wage and hour violations. Defendants later filed an amendment to the complaint, adding Plaintiff as a defendant in place of Doe 2. Approximately three months after adding Plaintiff to the underlying suit, Plaintiff served a CCP § 128.7 motion for sanctions on Defendants.

  • Hearing

    Jul 24, 2020

BROCK VS GOLDEN RAIN FOUNDATION

Fourth, the estimated combined value of the minimum wage and overtime claims is based on a $16.50 average hourly rate, times 1.9 minutes per shift, times the number of shifts at issue. How is this estimate tied to the value of either a minimum wage claim or an overtime claim? The minimum wage is less than $16.50 per hour, and assuming $16.50 per hour is the average regular hourly rate, it is only 2/3 the average overtime rate. 12.

  • Hearing

    Jul 24, 2020

SUPERMED HEALTH, INC VS JESSICA SHIH

Monetary Sanctions Plaintiff, APU and Tseng also seek monetary sanctions in the amount of $3,526.65 [calculated as follows: 4 hours preparing motion, plus 3 hour preparing reply or notice of non-opposition and preparing for and attending hearing at $495.00/hour, plus $61.65 filing fee.] The court determines that an award of terminating sanctions alone is sufficient. Plaintiff’s, APU’s and Tseng’s request for monetary sanctions is declined.

  • Hearing

    Jul 24, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

ORTIZ VS BAYSIDE INSURANCE ASSOCIATES, INC.

Bayside shall pay Suleima Ortiz $4,062.86 as damages for her individual wage and hour claims. Bayside shall pay $4,411 (Four-Thousand, Four-Hundred and Eleven Dollars) in costs incurred to counsel for Plaintiff Jackson Law, APC for prosecuting this matter. Bayside shall pay $9,126.13 in attorney’s fees . . . to Jackson Law, APC for achieving compensation for Hillary Nesser, Jaclyn England, and Suleima Ortiz. (Agreement, § 1.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 24, 2020

GLORIA MOSQUERA VS. HANI MAMMO

The breach of contract action is not so interrelated to make it impossible to separate that claim from the Labor Code violations. (See Pellegrino v Robert Half Int’l, Inc. (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 278, 289–290 [in action for wage and hour violations and for unfair competition, judge decreased lodestar figure by specified percentage to account for unfair competition claim for which fees were not recoverable]. Accordingly, the Court finds it necessary to reduce the total hours by another 10 hours.

  • Hearing

    Jul 24, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

MOHAMMED NASRI VS JUAN LOPEZ

Specifically, they seek an order permitting Lopez to assert various wage and hour claims against Nasri; these include a claim for (7) failure to compensate for all hours worked including overtime, (8) failure to pay earned wages at time of separation, and (9) unfair business practices. Lopez contends he worked for Nasri between 2015 and 2017 without pay, and with the expectation that he would be compensated when he purchased NK from Nasri.

  • Hearing

    Jul 23, 2020

PRICE-SIMMS HOLDINGS, LLC V. FIRLE, ET AL.

However, Williams expressly acknowledged that the privacy interest at issue in its case, that of employee contact information in a PAGA wage and hour representative action, was a lesser interest than that associated with financial privacy. Id. at 554-555.

  • Hearing

    Jul 23, 2020

ALBERTO GAMERO, ET AL. VS ROBIN HAIM, ET AL.

Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 553 [“In wage and hour collective actions, fellow employees would not be expected to want to conceal their contact information from plaintiffs asserting employment law violations, the state policies in favor of effective enforcement of these laws weigh on the side of disclosure, and any residual privacy concerns can be protected by issuing so-called Belaire-West notices affording notice and an opportunity to opt out from disclosure.”].)

  • Hearing

    Jul 23, 2020

KIMBERLY GARDNER V. JB PERRY HOLDINGS, INC. ET AL.

This means that litigating the facts surround the wrongful termination will necessarily involve many of the same facts supporting her PAGA wage and hour claims. Her unlawful business practices cause of action borrows from her PAGA claims to establish unlawful activity and so does not really exist outside of them. (Complaint at ¶ 55; Korea Supply Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp. (2003) 29 Cal.4th 1134, 1143 [unfair competition law “borrows” violations from other laws].)

  • Hearing

    Jul 22, 2020

MELISSA MARTINEZ VS L A HARDWOOD FLOORING INC ET AL

.; (7) declaratory judgment; (8) wrongful termination in violation [sic] the public policy of the State of California; (9) failure to pay wages due pursuant to California Labor Code, Sections 201, 1182.12, 1194, and 1194.2; (10) failure to provide meal and rest breaks in violation of California Labor Code, Sections 226.7 and 512; (11) failure to provide itemized wage statements in violation of California Labor Code, Section 226 et seq.; and (12) wait time penalties in violation of California Labor Code, Sections

  • Hearing

    Jul 22, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

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

    Jul 22, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

ROBERT BROWN VS ACCO ENGINEERED SYSTEMS, INC., ET AL.

The Court notes Defendants’ argument that Plaintiff’s amended pleadings improperly re-allege his wage and hour claims as age discrimination claims since Defendants’ obligations to comply with California wage and hour laws are separate from the question of whether Defendants discriminated against Plaintiff on the basis of his age. (Demurrer, pgs. 10-11.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 22, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

  « first    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 129     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.