Wage and Hour Violations in California

What Are Wage and Hour Violations?

Wage Statements

Labor Code § 226 requires an employer, semimonthly or at the time of each payment of wages, to furnish to his or her employee an accurate itemized wage statement. The statute of limitations on a §226 claim is one year. A one year statutory period applies to claims under Labor Code §226. See Falk v. Children’s Hospital Los Angeles (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 1453.

“The proper interpretation of a statute, and its application to undisputed facts, presents a question of law.” (Morgan v. United Retail Inc. (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 1136, 1142.) Labor Code § 226(a) requires employers to provide “accurate itemized statements in writing showing... (9) all applicable hourly rates in effect during the pay period and the corresponding number of hours worked at each hourly rate by the employee.”

“An employee suffering injury as a result of a knowing and intentional failure by an employer to comply with subdivision (a) is entitled to recover the greater of” actual damages or a set amount for each violation, which is capped at $4,000, in addition to reasonable attorney fees and costs. (Labor Code § 226(e).)

“An employee is deemed to suffer injury for purposes of this subdivision if the employer fails to provide accurate and complete information as required by any one or more of items (1) to (9), inclusive, of subdivision (a) and the employee cannot promptly and easily determine from the wage statement alone... any information required to be provided on the itemized wage statement pursuant to items (2) to (4), inclusive, (6), and (9) of subdivision (a).” (Labor Code § 226(e)(2)(B).) The phrase “‘promptly and easily determine’ means a reasonable person would be able to readily ascertain the information without reference to other documents or information.” (Labor Code § 226(e)(2)(C).)

Unpaid Wages

To state a claim for unpaid wages/overtime, where plaintiff may be entitled to receive an award of a civil penalty based on the number of days defendant failed to pay his wages when due, plaintiff must prove all of the following:

  1. The date on which plaintiff's employment ended;
  2. That defendant failed to pay all wages due by date
  3. Plaintiff's daily wage rate at the time his employment with defendant ended; and
  4. That defendant willfully failed to pay these wages.

The term "willfully" means that the employer intentionally failed or refused to pay the wages."

Civil Jury Instruction Form 2704

“§ 203 provides that employees must be paid their wages upon discharge or quitting. If the wages are not paid in accordance with law, the employee's wages "shall continue as a penalty" for up to 30 days. (Maldonado, infra, 22 Cal.App.5th at 1324.) “However, a "good faith dispute" will preclude the imposition of these waiting time penalties.” (Id.)

Overtime Pay

Labor Code § 1194(a) provides in relevant part: "Notwithstanding any agreement to work for a lesser wage, any employee receiving less than [...] the legal overtime compensation applicable to the employee is entitled to recover in a civil action the unpaid balance of the full amount of this minimum wage or overtime compensation, including interest thereon, reasonable attorney's fees, and costs of suit." Labor Code §510 sets out the payment required for overtime and double time.

Unpaid Overtime

  1. That plaintiff performed work for defendant;
  2. That plaintiff worked overtime hours;
  3. That defendant knew or should have known that plaintiff had worked overtime hours;
  4. That plaintiff was not paid/paid less than the overtime rate for some or all of the overtime hours worked; and
  5. The amount of overtime pay owed.

Civil Jury Instruction Form 2702

“As a general rule, overtime pay is required for each hour in excess of eight hours in one day, or 40 hours in one week.” (Maldonado, infra, 22 Cal.App.5th at 1313 citing § 510(a).)

In Maldonado, the court stated,

  1. [S]ection 510, subdivision (a) provides that any work in excess of eight hours in one day shall be compensated at the overtime rate of time and a half. This does not apply, however, to an employee working pursuant to a properly adopted AWS. (§ 510, subd. (a)(1).)
  2. "[T]he assertion of an exemption from the overtime laws is considered to be an affirmative defense, and therefore the employer bears the burden of proving the employee's exemption.” (Maldonado at 1327 citing Ramirez v. Yosemite Water Co. (1999) 20 Cal.4th 785, 794-795.)
Maldonado v. Epsilon Plastics, Inc. (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 1308, 1327.)

Exemptions from Wage and Overtime Provisions

The Fair Labor Standards Act, or “FLSA”, applies to employees in industries engaged in, or producing goods for, interstate commerce (29 U.S.C. §202(a)), unless the employer can claim an “exemption” from coverage. California Practice Guide, Employment Litigation, ¶11:20 (The Rutter Group 2016). Employers who claim that an exemption applies to their employees must show that the employees fit “plainly and unmistakenly” within the exemption’s terms. (Abshire v. County of Kern (9th Cir. 1990) 908 F.2d 483, 485-486; Ramirez v. Yosemite Water Co., Inc. (1999) 20 Cal.4th 785, 794; Lederman v. Frontier Fire Protection, Inc. (10th Cir. 2012) 685 F.3d 1151, 1157.)

“Motor carrier employees engaged in interstate commerce and otherwise subject to the maximum hour regulations of the Secretary of Transportation are exempt from overtime pay requirements of federal law.” See California Practice Guide, Employment Litigation, ¶11:325.1 (The Rutter Group 2016 referencing 29 U.S.C. § 213(b)(1); 49 CFR § 395.1, et seq.) “In other words, the minimum wage requirement is inapplicable to “any employee with respect to whom the Secretary of Transportation has power to establish qualifications and maximum hours of service pursuant to the provisions of § 31502 of Title 49.” See 29 U.S.C. § 207(a)(1); 213(b)(1).

“Employees subject to the Secretary of Transportation’s jurisdiction under title 49 U.S. Code § 315029(b) are exempt from the FLSA’s overtime compensation requirement pursuant to the motor carrier exemption, regardless of whether the Secretary of Transportation actually exercises jurisdiction.” (Bell v. H.F. Cox, Inc. (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 62, 77.) “The motor carrier exemption applies to individual employees only if:

  1. their employer is a carrier subject to the jurisdiction of the Secretary of Transportation under title 49 United States Code § 31502(b), and
  2. the individual employees are engaged in activities directly affecting the safety of operation of motor vehicles in interstate or foreign commerce.”

(Id.)

49 U.S.C. § 31502(b) provides that the Secretary of Transportation may prescribe requirements for:

  1. qualifications and maximum hours of service of employees of, and safety of operation and equipment of, a motor carrier; and
  2. qualifications and maximum hours of service of employees of, and standards of equipment of, a motor private carrier, when needed to promote safety of operation.

“The 11090(3)(L) exemption does not apply, however, to the entire wage order, and instead applies only to the overtime provisions.” (Cicairos v. Summit Logistics, Inc. (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 949, 959.)

Cause of Actions in General — Violations

Minimum Wages — plaintiff may be entitled up to $9,027 for unpaid minimum wages under § 1197 plus the same amount as liquidated damages under § 1194.2.

Overtime Wages — Plaintiff is also owed a civil penalty under § 558 of $50 for the first violation and $100 for each subsequent violation per pay period for this 64-week period.

Split Shift Pay — Under Wage Order 4-2001, subdivision (4)(c), plaintiff is owed split shift pay calculated at one hour at the minimum wage for each workday violated.

Meal Periods — Under § 226.7, plaintiff is owed an hour’s minimum wage for each of the days worked where he did not receive a meal period.

Rest Periods — Under § 226.7, plaintiff is owed an hour’s minimum wage for each of the days worked where he did not receive a rest period.

Wage Statements — Under § 226, subdivision (e)(1), plaintiff is owed $50 for the first violation and $100 for each subsequent violation not to exceed $4,000. Example: Where a Plaintiff claims defendant violated § 226 x number of times, plaintiff may be entitled to the statutory maximum.

Rulings for Wage and Hour Violations in California

This is not a case where a PAGA claim premised on wage-and-hour violations is brought alongside a truly individualized claim, such as a FEHA discrimination claim. Rather, Plaintiffs’ individual claims in this matter are for the same Labor Code violations that underlie the PAGA claim.

  • Name

    CALIXTO OCHOA VS. FLETCHER

  • Case No.

    30-2018-00966391-CU-OE-CXC

  • Hearing

    Aug 23, 2019

Identify Civil actions regarding wage and hour violations filed in past 4 years. GRANT. SI 17. Name administrative claims regarding wage and hour violations filed in past 4 years. GRANT. SI 18. Name Civil actions regarding wage and hour violations filed in past 4 years. GRANT. (Unclear how this differs from SI 16) SI 19. Identify all employees who have filed administrative actions regarding wage and hour violations filed in past 4 years. DENY. Duplicative of 17. SI 20.

  • Name

    RAMOS VS OAKHURST INDUSTRIES, INC.

  • Case No.

    RG20050540

  • Hearing

    Dec 15, 2021

  • County

    Alameda County, CA

Nevertheless, even if the Court assumes that the wage and hour violations included in the May 16, 2017, letter are “covered by” Section 2810.3(b), Plaintiffs’ letter fails to reference Section 2810.3(b) in any way, shape or form.

  • Name

    GUZMAN, MARIO VS. CALOY INC

  • Case No.

    2027247

  • Hearing

    Jan 30, 2018

The Garcia Action in San Diego seeks civil penalties for: (1) Meal and rest period violations; (2) Minimum wage violations; (3) Overtime violations; (4) Wage statement violations; (5) Failure to reimburse; (6) Failure to pay wages upon separation. Plaintiff states that this action differs from the Garcia Action in that she alleges that Defendant failed to provide seating to their employees and includes a request for penalties pursuant to Labor Code section 558 in the “fourth cause of action.”

  • Name

    REBECCA MENDEZ VS ENESCO PROPERTIES, LLC

  • Case No.

    20STCV13164

  • Hearing

    Sep 04, 2020

Defendant argues that the nine (9) subsections of Labor Code 226(a) involve the same primary right – accurate itemized wage statements. However, in wage and hour practice, courts have determined violations of Labor Code 226(a) by specific subsection. Violations are specifically alleged and litigated separately for each subsection. Most of Defendant’s authorities do not involve wage and hour claims.

  • Name

    GARCIA V. PACIFIC BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY

  • Case No.

    VCU276232

  • Hearing

    Feb 19, 2019

WAGE AND HOUR VIOLATIONS - FAILURE TO PAY MINIMUM WAGE 2. WAGE AND HOUR VIOLATIONS - FAILURE TO PAY WAGES AND OVERTIME COMPENSATION 3. FAILURE TO PROVIDE MEAL PERIODS 4. FAILURE TO PROVIDE REST PERIODS 5. WAITING TIME PENALTIES 6. FAILURE TO PROVIDE AND MAINTAIN ACCURATE WAGE STATEMENTS AND RECORDS 7. UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES Default was entered against defendant Marianna Enterprises, Inc. (“Marianna”) on November 21, 2016.

  • Name

    AMALIA HERNANDEZ VS MARIANNA ENTERPRISES INC

  • Case No.

    BC634925

  • Hearing

    Apr 20, 2017

All fees associated with the wage and hour code violations are recoverable. Although there is no statutory fee-shifting provision applicable to meal and rest break violations, these claims are based on common factual and legal issues as the wage violation claims for which fees are recoverable. Therefore, no apportionment is necessary.

  • Name

    QUIGLEY VS BIS CLUB AND BAR, INC.

  • Case No.

    RIC2001940

  • Hearing

    Aug 04, 2022

  • County

    Riverside County, CA

First through Sixth COAs: Wage and Hour Law Violations Defendants assert generically, without any legal analysis whatsoever, that the complaint states insufficient facts and is uncertain. The applicable wage and hour statutes are set forth below.

  • Name

    DIMINGO LOPEZ-LOPEZ ET AL VS BBS NATIONAL INC ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC651453

  • Hearing

    Aug 22, 2017

Plaintiffs in the instant case are servers and cleaners at Defendants catering business who claim wage and hour violations related to their work. By contrast, the Intervenors worked as massage therapists at the spa, and their claims relate to how the spa was managed.

  • Name

    CLAUDIA CASTILLO, ET AL. VS WESTLAKE PROPERTIES, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    21STCV00666

  • Hearing

    Dec 08, 2022

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

This provision applies for violations “except those for which a civil penalty is specifically provided.” Lab. Code § 2699(f). Plaintiff claims this penalty for 10 pay periods for the following six categories of violations: minimum wage, overtime, failure to pay wages, rest periods, meal periods, and wage statements, or $1,900 per category of violation for a total of $11,400. For minimum wage violations, the liquidated damages plaintiff claims is characterized as a penalty. Bain v.

  • Name

    JOSE ORELLANA VS FROILAN C GRAJEDA

  • Case No.

    BC569022

  • Hearing

    Nov 04, 2016

The complaint alleged several wage-and-hour violations and also brought claims under the California Private Attorney General Act. The parties jointly seek approval of the PAGA portion of the settlement agreement reached, which is $18,000.

  • Name

    JAIME DE LA CRUZ ROMO VS GREEN CREW LAND CARE INC.

  • Case No.

    18STCV00705

  • Hearing

    Feb 06, 2019

Seventh Cause of Action Defendants argue that only Plaintiff’s first, second, and eighth causes of action provide potential legal bases for Plaintiff’s UCL count because the remaining wage/hour violations are not wage violations. Even is this is true, by Defendants’ concession, at least three violations exist from which Plaintiff’s UCL claim can stand (i.e., a demurrer must completely dispose of a cause of action).

  • Name

    JEA HUNG LYOO VS SKY EXPRESS WORLD COURIER, INC., ET AL.

  • Case No.

    21STCV12715

  • Hearing

    Aug 05, 2021

Plaintiffs further allege, "Based on information and belief, Defendants had knowledge of the wage-and-hour violations alleged herein and each defendant had the power to prevent the violations from occurring. Having knowledge of the wage-and-hour violations set forth in this Complaint, Defendants could have but failed to prevent the violations from occurring." (FAC, ¶32-33.)

  • Name

    DANICA N KEICH VS. US HEALTHWORKS INC

  • Case No.

    37-2017-00015343-CU-OE-CTL

  • Hearing

    Jan 17, 2018

On March 24, 2017, plaintiffs filed a complaint for (1) violation of wage and hour laws – unpaid overtime wages, (2) violation of rest period law, (3) violation of meal period law, (4) failure to pay minimum wage, (5) violation of wage and hour laws – waiting time penalties, (6) failure to provide accurate wage statements, (7) UCL violations, (8) reimbursement of business expenses, (9) unlawful deductions from wages, (10) conversion of gratuities, and (11) failure to pay all wages at time of discharge.

  • Name

    HEEMIN YANG VS PHAROS & SHRINE INC ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC655095

  • Hearing

    May 21, 2018

On November 30, 2016, plaintiffs filed a complaint for (1) violation of wage and hour laws – unpaid overtime wages, (2) violation of rest period law, (3) violation of meal period law, (4) failure to pay minimum wage, (5) violation of wage and hour laws – waiting time penalties, (6) failure to provide accurate wage statements, (7) UCL violations, (8) reimbursement of business expenses, (9) unlawful deductions from wages, (10) conversion of gratuities, and (11) failure to pay all wages at time of discharge.

  • Name

    SEI MYOUNG HER ET AL VS PHAROS & SHRINE INC ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC642213

  • Hearing

    May 21, 2018

F-49 Date: 12-14-21 Case #PC058809 ATTORNEY WITHDRAWAL MOVING Attorney: Julian King CLIENT: Plaintiff, Jonny Rivas RELIEF REQUESTED Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel of Record SUMMARY OF ACTION On September 26, 2018, Plaintiff Pedro Padilla filed a PAGA complaint for wage and hour violations.

  • Name

    PEDRO PADILLA VS. ROOTER HERO PLUMBING INC. ET. AL.

  • Case No.

    PC058809

  • Hearing

    Dec 14, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Kenneth Cole Productions, Inc. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 1094, some district courts have concluded that because extra hours paid for meal period violations are a "premium wage," missed meal premiums can support a section 226 wage statement claim. Others have reached the opposition conclusion, citing Kirby v. Immoos Fire Protection, Inc. (2012) 53 Cal.4th 1244, which held that meal-period violations are not tied to the nonpayment of wages. Stewart, supra, at 887-888.

  • Name

    MATTHEW MAXFELDT VS. RINCON CONSULTANTS INC [E-FILE]

  • Case No.

    37-2017-00023887-CU-OE-CTL

  • Hearing

    Apr 19, 2018

It is possible Plaintiff contends no other individuals suffered “the same wage and TENTATIVE RULING RE: MOTION TO DISMISS CLASS ACTION 1 hour violations,” but Plaintiff provides no details in this regard. Further, if Plaintiff is the only 2 individual to have suffered wage and hour violations, it is unclear why Plaintiff filed this case as 3 a class action in the first place. 4 Plaintiff has not met her burden.

  • Name

    LU V. SURGICAL CARE AFFILIATES, LLC

  • Case No.

    2016-1-CV-292982

  • Hearing

    Mar 01, 2019

In both actions, the plaintiffs have the same interest — enforcement of the wage and hour laws on behalf of non-exempt Denny’s employees in order to maximize monetary recovery and abate violations of wage and hour laws. (See Villacres v. ABM Industries Inc. (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 562 (rejecting plaintiff’s claim that privity could not be established because the State was the actual plaintiff in her PAGA claim).)

  • Name

    MYRA DELEON, AS AN INDIVIDUAL AND ON BEHALF OF ALL SIMILARLY SITUATED EMPLOYEES VS DENNY'S INC.

  • Case No.

    20STCV20769

  • Hearing

    Aug 26, 2020

A finding that Defendants didn’t commit substantive wage-and-hour violations resulting in derivative LC § 204 violations won’t affect anything in the FEHA matter, nor will a finding that Defendants didn’t intentionally delay Sanchez’s paycheck in retaliation affect a claim for LC § 204 violations derivative of substantive wage and-hour violations.

  • Name

    SANCHEZ VS. PRIORITY WORKFORCE, LLC

  • Case No.

    21-01237766

  • Hearing

    Sep 01, 2023

A finding that Defendants didn’t commit substantive wage-and-hour violations resulting in derivative LC § 204 violations won’t affect anything in the FEHA matter, nor will a finding that Defendants didn’t intentionally delay Sanchez’s paycheck in retaliation affect a claim for LC § 204 violations derivative of substantive wage and-hour violations.

  • Name

    VALENCIA VS. PRIORITY WORKFORCE, LLC

  • Case No.

    22-01244163

  • Hearing

    Sep 01, 2023

Wage and Hour Violations. The demurrer is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND to allege an employment relationship between plaintiffs and the Insperity Defendants. 5th Cause of Action – Wage and Hour Violations. The demurrer is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND to allege an employment relationship between plaintiffs and the Insperity Defendants. 6th Cause of Action – Family Rights Act.

  • Name

    IRENE MORENO VS CIRRUS ASSET MANAGEMENT INC

  • Case No.

    BC715898

  • Hearing

    Aug 10, 2020

First, there is a controversy between the parties by virtue of the alleged FEHA and wage and hour violations. Second, Radnet provides evidence of a writing arbitration agreement that broadly covers “claims which arise for wages and other compensation” and “claims for discrimination.” Hendizadeh Decl. ¶ 2, Exh. A. Accordingly, the parties have an agreement to arbitrate.

  • Name

    RAZIEH KORDESTANI VS CALIFORNIA RADIOLOGY ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC619918

  • Hearing

    Oct 18, 2016

Central Transport has argued that Depadua's wage and hour claims are legally frivolous because they are barred by the res judicata effect of the class action settlement in Salvador Estrada v. Central Transport LLC, Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No. 20STCV05533. Depadua declined to dismiss his wage and hour claims during the statutory safe harbor period and instead filed opposition to Central Transport's summary adjudication motion seeking to dispose of those claims.

  • Name

    DEPADUA VS CENTRAL TRANSPORT, LLC

  • Case No.

    RG20061563

  • Hearing

    Sep 02, 2021

Plaintiff Cruz Amezcua filed this wage and hour PAGA action against Defendant Vita-Pakt Citrus Products Co. The complaint seeks penalties for various wage and hour violations, including failure to provide meal and rest periods, failure to provide a rest day, failure to pay wages, inaccurate wage statements, and waiting time penalties.

  • Name

    CRUZ AMEZCUA VS VITA-PAKT CITRUS PRODUCTS CO

  • Case No.

    BC624342

  • Hearing

    Nov 03, 2016

Plaintiff claimed he was owed over $13,000 for overtime, $4,000 for wage statement violations, $3,570 for minimum wage penalty, and $5,200 for waiting time penalties. ROA # 112 [Pltf.'s Trial Brief], p. 14. Plaintiff recovered nothing for overtime, only $150 for two wage statements, and nothing for minimum wages or waiting time penalties. In this case, an award of $50,000 is appropriate. Defendant argues the Court should exercise its discretion under Code of Civil Procedure section 1033 to disallow fees.

  • Name

    LEVIKOW VS. HERRING NETWORKS INC

  • Case No.

    37-2015-00038324-CU-OE-CTL

  • Hearing

    Oct 25, 2018

In addition to these substantive violations of the Labor Code, the Meadows FAC includes derivative allegations for wage statement violations, waiting time penalties, UCL violations and PAGA.

  • Name

    PARK VS. AMERICAN ADDICTION CENTERS, INC.

  • Case No.

    30-2019-01063183

  • Hearing

    Oct 04, 2019

Plaintiffs allege wage and hour claims against Meridian based upon a uniform policy resulting in wage and hour violations. (Aiwazian supp. decl., ¶ 4.) (Note: The following description of violations is reported by plaintiffs from their perspective. Meridian denies and dispute all alleged wrongdoing. (Settlement Agreement, § Y.)) The wage and hour violations included failure to pay overtime and minimum wages. (Aiwazian supp. decl., ¶¶ 8-12.)

  • Name

    SHAWN LAFOUNTAIN VS MERIDIAN SENIOR LIVING LLC

  • Case No.

    15CV00024

  • Hearing

    Feb 04, 2019

As to these and any other wage violations allegedly suffered before March 9, 2018, Plaintiff lacks standing to assert them because she did not suffer the alleged violations within the applicable statute of limitations. Defendant also issued a wage statement to Plaintiff on March 23, 2018 inclusive of a bonus payment and related overtime wages accounting for the bonus payment. (Id. at ¶¶ 5-6.)

  • Name

    POPAL VS WELLS FARGO BANK N A

  • Case No.

    37-2019-00024470-CU-OE-CTL

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2020

Wage and Hour Claims (9th) – The 9th COA alleges various Labor Code violations against Helzberg and Fowler. Like the 5th COA, both Defendants demur on the ground that this COA improperly combines separate and distinct wage and hour claims. This has merit. Fowler separately demurs on the ground that he is not personally liable for wage and hour violations. This also has merit. See Reynolds v. Bement (2005) 36 Cal.4th 1075, 1090.

  • Name

    CECILIA MILLER VS HELZBERG'S DIAMOND SHOPS INC ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC632527

  • Hearing

    Feb 24, 2017

Plaintiffs representative wage and hour action is brought under the Private Attorney Generals Act (PAGA). (Cal. Labor Code §2698 et. seq.) Plaintiff alleges that she and other similarly situated non-exempt employees are aggrieved employees of Defendants. The employees suffered various violations of Californias wage and hour laws.

  • Name

    PAULINA SANCHEZ VS VOLT MANAGEMENT CORP., ET AL.

  • Case No.

    22TRCV00125

  • Hearing

    Nov 21, 2022

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Accordingly, Plaintiff asserts that Defendant—the defendant corporation’s President/CEO, CFO, and director—is personally liable for wage and hour violations. Effective January 1, 2016, the Legislature enacted California Labor Code, section 558.1, which permits liability to be imposed on individual owners, directors or officers, for violations of the Labor Code.

  • Name

    LIU VS SPLENDOR MANAGEMENT COR

  • Case No.

    MSC16-02214

  • Hearing

    Apr 06, 2017

Therefore, Apollo’s purported wage and hour violations can be imputed to DMG. Thus, plaintiff sufficiently alleges both entity defendants exerted control over him. Accordingly, plaintiff alleges the basis of liability for both defendants. B.

  • Name

    CELESTEIN BAHAM VS APOLLO COURIERS, INC, A CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20STCV48718

  • Hearing

    Jul 30, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

She also seeks to certify subclasses corresponding to the various cases of action alleged in the complaint: (1) failure to pay minimum wages, (2) failure to pay wages and overtime, (3) meal period liability, (4) rest break liability, (5) wage statement violations, (6) violations of Labor Code section 221 arising from a failure to provide meal periods, (7) failure to timely pay wages owed at termination or resignation, and (8) violations of Business & Professions Code section 17200 et seq.

  • Name

    ELIZARRARAZ V. S.J. DISTRIBUTORS INC.

  • Case No.

    18-CV-333810

  • Hearing

    Mar 15, 2019

The violations alleged and the defenses described by Grix to the wage and hour claims appear to be the same for the plaintiff’s claim as for the claims regarding the other aggrieved employees. Yet the value of the two classes of claims are treated dramatically different. The plaintiff is to receive $12,500. Even if $10,000 of that sum were allocated to the unpled wrongful termination claim, he would recover $2,500 on his wage and hour claims, over 20% of the maximum value of $12,322.25.

  • Name

    BURKE VS SAN JOAQUIN

  • Case No.

    MCC1700086

  • Hearing

    May 17, 2018

The facts in Hodge involved wage-and-hour claims and a UCL claim against an employer. Similarly, here, the cross-complaint alleges wage-and-hour claims, as well as a UCL claim based on the labor law violations. As such, there is merit to granting the motion to sever such that equitable questions of violating the UCL should be heard after the legal claims for wage-and-hour violations.

  • Name

    ACRO DEVELOPMENT INC., ET AL VS. DANIELLE RUTH BAEZ, ET AL

  • Case No.

    EC064884

  • Hearing

    May 11, 2018

tort, including violations of public policy.

  • Name

    STARDANCER LLC VS FELIPE CASTANEDA

  • Case No.

    1380396

  • Hearing

    Sep 06, 2011

Case Number: 19STCV14956 Hearing Date: December 28, 2020 Dept: 34 PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT JUDGMENT BACKGROUND : This action arises from various wage and hour violations Plaintiff endured during his employment from May 2016 to October 2018 with Defendant. (See SAC, ¶¶ 4-12.)

  • Name

    JOSE MANUEL ALDAY VS FANTASY DYEING & FISHING, INC.

  • Case No.

    19STCV14956

  • Hearing

    Dec 28, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

CV F 11-1838 LJO JLT) 2012 WL 78242, where the complaint lacked facts that the managers acted on the entity's behalf to cause wage and hour violations, Plaintiffs allege Ohanessian is President and CEO of SCOOBEEZ and SCOOBEEZ GLOBAL, INC. Plaintiffs allege that in such position he dictated "the terms and conditions of Plaintiffs' and other aggrieved employees' employment, including the applicable policies and practices." (Consolidated Complaint, ¶ 36.)

  • Name

    ARTURO VEGA VS. SCOOBEEZ

  • Case No.

    37-2017-00018285-CU-OE-CTL

  • Hearing

    Oct 18, 2018

He alleges wage and hour causes of action regarding overtime, meal breaks, rest breaks, etc. under the Labor Code, Unfair Competition Law, and PAGA. At issue is Brands motion to dismiss Plaintiffs PAGA cause of action.

  • Name

    MARLIN JONES VS BRAND SCAFFOLD SERVICES, INC.

  • Case No.

    21STCV07312

  • Hearing

    Dec 07, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

While the standard of review on a demurrer is forgiving, the Court understands these (and other) Defendants’ frustration with wage-and-hour class action complaints containing mostly general allegations. Often, those allegations appear as though they could be plugged into almost any wage-and-hour lawsuit. And while defendants have the ability to conduct discovery to find out what evidence supports the various claims, that process can be expensive and time-consuming.

  • Name

    DELEON VS. NCH MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, INC.

  • Case No.

    30-2019-01060073

  • Hearing

    Oct 04, 2019

F-49 Date: 9-7-23 Case #PC058809 ATTORNEY WITHDRAWAL MOVING Attorney: Julian King CLIENT: Plaintiff, Jonny Rivas RELIEF REQUESTED Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel of Record SUMMARY OF ACTION On September 26, 2018, Plaintiff Pedro Padilla filed a PAGA complaint for wage and hour violations.

  • Name

    PEDRO PADILLA VS. ROOTER HERO PLUMBING INC. ET. AL.

  • Case No.

    PC058809

  • Hearing

    Sep 07, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

The instant case is a wage and hour dispute brought by an employee who worked as an in-home caregiver. She claims she worked twenty-four hours per day, five days per week beginning in 2011 and up through April 11, 2017. She is suing her employer (Nightingale) and its Chief Executive Officer (Tangonan) for various wage and hour violations.

  • Name

    BARROS VS. TANGONAN

  • Case No.

    37-2017-00039464-CU-OE-NC

  • Hearing

    Oct 04, 2018

Plaintiff filed this action under the Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA") alleging wage and hour violations on behalf of herself and other allegedly aggrieved employees against her employer – Late Mornings, Inc. Plaintiff MARINA CARNEIRO requests Summary Adjudication of the 12th (No Overtime Worked), 13th (Not Entitled to Overtime) and 14th (No Rest and Meal Period Violations) Affirmative Defenses, as plead by LATE MORNINGS, INC. dba BORN & RAISED ("LMI").

  • Name

    CARNIERO VS LATE MORNINGS INC

  • Case No.

    37-2019-00035596-CU-OE-CTL

  • Hearing

    Aug 26, 2021

Those allegations can be divided into three categories: (1) wage and hour allegations; (2) harassment allegations; and (3) health and safety allegations. Wage and Hour Allegations Defendants move the Court to strike the wage and hour allegations included in Plaintiff’s Complaint.

  • Name

    ANTHONY JOHNSON VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES AND ITS DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND POWER, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    21STCV11819

  • Hearing

    Aug 20, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Discrimination/Harass

and hour dispute.

  • Name

    GOMEZ, ET AL. V. TURFEVOLUTIONS, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    30-2015-00810574-CU-OE-CJC

  • Hearing

    May 01, 2017

While Plaintiff is requesting damages in the amount of an additional hour per day for both the meal and rest violations, the statute provides for "one additional hour of pay at the employee's regular rate of compensation for each work day that the meal or rest period is not provided." Plaintiff does not appear to be entitled to two hours of additional compensation; allowing Plaintiff to double up the damages.

  • Name

    JAIME REYES VS. JOSE PRADO

  • Case No.

    56-2014-00454989-CU-OE-VTA

  • Hearing

    Mar 01, 2016

While the Court understands why a PAGA case and a class case might be filed at different times, they address essentially the same set of alleged violations of the wage-and-hour laws (albeit with different remedies). The cases are ordered consolidated under the lower docket number. The Court thanks counsel for the inventory of current wage-and-hour cases pending against AAA.

  • Name

    DAVION FRAZIER VS. AMERICAN AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA, NEVADA & UTAH

  • Case No.

    C23-03184

  • Hearing

    Feb 29, 2024

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

Wage and Hour Protocol,” Appendix H states as follows: “ The Parties to this Agreement, including individual bargaining-unit employees and/or a group/class of bargaining-unit employees, agree to resolve on an individual basis solely and exclusively through the binding mediation and arbitration process set forth in this Protocol any and all claims alleging violations of any wage and hour laws and/or meal and rest period laws, including but not limited to claims alleging a failure to pay the minimum wage,

  • Name

    FRANCISCO J. GARCIA MACIAS VS ABLE SERVICE, INC., ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20STCV37390

  • Hearing

    Jun 11, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

Plaintiff also alleges wage and hour violations and brings a related PAGA action. Defendants Action Sales & Metal Co., Inc. and Bruce Falk demur to the Second Amended Complaint and move to strike portions thereof.

  • Name

    JEFFREY BARR VS ACTION SALES & METAL CO INC ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC723895

  • Hearing

    Nov 12, 2020

Case Summary In this matter, the Plaintiff originally brought her wage-and-hour class action against automaker Defendant on August 10, 2021.

  • Case No.

    ['CIVSB2124160', 'CIVSB2125996']

  • Hearing

    Feb 23, 2023

  • County

    San Bernardino County, CA

On July 28, 2016, BARROSO filed a complaint for Whistle-Blower Retaliation (Labor Code section 1102.5), Wage and Hour Violations: Rest Periods (Labor Code sections 226.7, 512), Wage and Hour Violations: Meal Breaks (Labor Code sections 210, 226), Wage and Hour Violations: Waiting Time (Labor Code sections 202, 203), Workplace Disparate Treatment – Age/Disability/Perceived Disability (Government Code section 12940, et seq.), and Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy (FEHA, Labor Code section 1102.5

  • Name

    DAVID BARROSO VS U EVOLUTION LLC

  • Case No.

    BC628610

  • Hearing

    May 24, 2017

Defendant regularly failed to provide a meal period of not less than 30 minutes that commenced within the first five hours of work to those employees whose work lasted five hours or longer, and failed to pay them one hour of pay at the employee's regular rate of pay for each work day such meal period was not provided, in violation of Labor Code §226.7 and California Industrial Welfare Commission's Wage Order 1-2001, §11.

  • Name

    GONZALEZ VS WATERWAY PLASTICS

  • Case No.

    56-2014-00460695-CU-OE-VTA

  • Hearing

    Oct 28, 2020

  • Judge

    Vincent O'Neill

  • County

    Ventura County, CA

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

Seven of Fonseca's nine claims against the Foxmans were brought under either the Fair Employment and Housing Act ("FEHA") for harassment or the Labor Code for violations of wage and hour laws. Defendants who prevail on FEHA and Labor Code wage and hour claims brought against them are not entitled to their costs, unless the Plaintiffs' claims are frivolous. It does not appear to the Court that Fonseca's FEHA and Labor Code claims were frivolous.

  • Name

    REBECA FONSECA VS TED FOXMAN, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19STCV38087

  • Hearing

    Jun 20, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

INTRODUCTION This is a PAGA and wage and hour case. Plaintiff Raul Michael Pedroza ("Pedroza" or “Plaintiff”) worked for defendant CSK Auto, Inc. ("CSK") as a non-exempt "Parts Specialist" from March 2012 until May 2012 at CSK's Ontario, California location. (Second Amended Complaint ("SAC") ¶ 22.)

  • Name

    ROBERT E OWENS JR VS OREILLY AUTOMOTIVE STORES INC ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC475210

  • Hearing

    Sep 26, 2017

This includes discovery on the merits of the alleged wage and hour violations, as to Ms. Ortmann herself as well as the other employees allegedly aggrieved by such violations. This stay does not extend to discovery between Plaintiff and Adecco. The parties are ordered to meet and confer concerning how and when to present the employment issue to the Court, and to set forth their ideas in their next joint case management statement.

  • Name

    OLGA ORTMANN V. ADECCO USA, INC., ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19CV355315

  • Hearing

    Apr 29, 2021

Case Number: 19LBCV00063 Hearing Date: February 19, 2021 Dept: S27 Plaintiff, Kavin Turner filed this action against Defendant, KBR, Inc. for wage and hour violations. After mediation, the parties agreed that it would be best to treat the case as a class action in order to avoid piecemeal litigation of the same issues by multiple persons. Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint which seeks redress for various wage and hour violations on a class action basis.

  • Name

    KAVIN TURNER VS KBR INC.,, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19LBCV00063

  • Hearing

    Feb 19, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

Case Number: 19LBCV00063 Hearing Date: January 28, 2021 Dept: S27 Plaintiff, Kavin Turner filed this action against Defendant, KBR, Inc. for wage and hour violations. After mediation, the parties agreed that it would be best to treat the case as a class action in order to avoid piecemeal litigation of the same issues by multiple persons. Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint which seeks redress for various wage and hour violations on a class action basis.

  • Name

    KAVIN TURNER VS KBR INC.,, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19LBCV00063

  • Hearing

    Jan 28, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

Defendant argues, for example, that Plaintiff was provided with his time cards and wage statements in October of 2020. (Carpenter Decl. ¶ 4.) Defendant does not explain how provision of Plaintiffs timecards and wage statements were sufficient to put Plaintiffs counsel on notice of the wage and hour violations.

  • Name

    ROBERT YOUNG VS HUNTINGTON MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, A BUSINESS ENTITY, FORM UNKNOWN

  • Case No.

    20STCV24657

  • Hearing

    Jun 22, 2022

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Plaintiff alleges that these joint employers engaged in various wage and hour violations and, based on those allegations, asserts the following seven causes of action: (1) Failure to Pay Wages; (2) Failure to Provide Meal Periods; (3) Failure to Permit Rest Breaks; (4) Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized Wage Statements; (5) Failure to Pay All Wages Due Upon Separation of Employment; (6) Violation of Business and Professions Code §§ 17200, et seq.; and (7) Enforcement of Labor Code § 2698, et seq.

  • Name

    FLORES VS PRECISE PERSONNEL LLC

  • Case No.

    30-2019-01076985

  • Hearing

    Dec 06, 2019

E4 CONTROL SYSTEMS, INC., ERIC RODEN, Case No. 19STCV32801 RULING ON PROPOSED ORDER FOR COURT APPROVAL OF PAGA SETTLEMENT: Plaintiff as an individual filed a complaint containing 16 causes of action that alleged wage and hour violations by his former employer. The complaint alleged in the 12th cause of action the employer’s wage and hour practices violated PAGA, Labor Code §§2698 and 2699. The parties’ stipulated settlement has the following terms: The PAGA claims are settled for$140,000.

  • Name

    HUMBERTO MORENO FLORES VS E4 CONTROL SYSTEMS, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19STCV32801

  • Hearing

    Dec 11, 2020

As a result, summary adjudication is proper as to the first through ninth causes of action for wage and hour violations. b. Retaliation Claims I. Prima Facie Defendant also moves for summary adjudication on the tenth through twelfth causes of action for whistleblower retaliation, retaliation in violation of public policy, and wrongful termination in violation of public policy.

  • Name

    DON LYON VS GAFCON, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

  • Case No.

    20STCV12759

  • Hearing

    Nov 05, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

As a result, summary adjudication is proper as to the first through ninth causes of action for wage and hour violations. b. Retaliation Claims I. Prima Facie Defendant also moves for summary adjudication on the tenth through twelfth causes of action for whistleblower retaliation, retaliation in violation of public policy, and wrongful termination in violation of public policy.

  • Name

    DON LYON VS GAFCON, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

  • Case No.

    20STCV12759

  • Hearing

    Nov 05, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

and hour violations, including periods of time during which the statute of limitations was or may have been tolled or suspended.

  • Name

    JUN HE VS NEWSTARS TOUR INC ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC613817

  • Hearing

    May 04, 2017

Minimum Wage (3rd COA) Regarding the third cause of action, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants failed to pay him the minimum wage by, among other things, requiring him to clock out for rest breaks. (FAC, ¶ 33.) This suffices to state a cause of action for minimum wage violations. 5.

  • Name

    ZAVALA VS. PHANS55, INC.

  • Case No.

    30-2019-01048642

  • Hearing

    Feb 07, 2020

BACKGROUND On June 6, 2023, Plaintiff filed her Complaint, alleging against Defendant Vision Media and Does 1 through 10, alleging wage and hour violations under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 action (PAGA), as codified in California Labor Code sections 2698, et seq. (Compl., at 2.)

  • Name

    KAREN DE HERRERA, AN INDIVIDUAL, ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND ALL OTHER AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEES VS VISION MEDIA MANAGEMENT & FULFILLMENT, LLC, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

  • Case No.

    23CHCV01640

  • Hearing

    Mar 15, 2024

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Plaintiffs claim that they were terminated after they complained about various Labor Code wage and hour violations. The complaint, filed 1/20/16, asserts causes of action for: 1. Failure to Pay Overtime Compensation 2. Failure to Pay Minimum Wages 3. Wage Statement Violations 4. Waiting Time Penalties 5. Failure to Provide Rest Breaks and Meal Periods 6. Failure to Pay Wages for All Hours Worked 7. Wrongful Discharge in Violation of Public Policy 8.

  • Name

    ZHILIN ZHAO VS WORLD HOTPOT BUFFETT INC.

  • Case No.

    KC068177

  • Hearing

    Jan 24, 2017

tort, including violations of public policy.

  • Name

    STARDANCER LLC VS FELIPE CASTANEDA

  • Case No.

    1380396

  • Hearing

    Sep 13, 2011

The present action is a purported class action and PAGA complaint, asserting a variety of alleged wage-and-hour violations by defendant Mark Beamish Waterproofing. However, a prior-filed case, the Venegas action, had already been filed in Orange County Superior Court, alleging substantially the same set of alleged violations. That case is filed as a PAGA-only case, with no purported class action.

  • Name

    COLBURN VS MARK BEAMISH WATERPROOFING, INC.

  • Case No.

    MSC22-00271

  • Hearing

    Jan 26, 2023

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

Plaintiff's counsel calculates that defendants' total exposure is $16,300 for the meal period violations, $400 for the reporting time violations, and $16,400 for the wage statement violations, for a total of $33,100. Schmidt Decl., ¶¶ 21-23. Since the violations occurred during a time span of only approximately three months and there is no indication that defendants willfully violated the Labor Code, imposing the full amount of penalties would be unjust.

  • Name

    MATTHEW MAXFELDT VS. RINCON CONSULTANTS INC [E-FILE]

  • Case No.

    37-2017-00023887-CU-OE-CTL

  • Hearing

    Apr 25, 2019

The Court finds that, absent evidence of wage and hour violations as to any other employees, the absence of recovery of civil penalties pursuant to PAGA is fair, adequate and reasonable. Conversely, to impose civil penalties where there is no evidence of wage and hour violations as to other employees would result in an award that is unjust and arbitrary.

  • Name

    JUNHO NOH VS NATUREWARE INC ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC602158

  • Hearing

    Aug 11, 2017

Defendants contend that Article IX of the Master Agreement provides for the arbitration of alleged wage and hour violations under Wage Order 16, and that because the Memorandum Agreement incorporates the Master Agreement by reference, the claims in this case are subject to arbitration under the grievance and arbitration provisions of the Memorandum Agreement.

  • Name

    PELAEZ VS. INSTAFF, INC.

  • Case No.

    30-2017-00945964-CU-OE-CXC

  • Hearing

    May 04, 2018

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Sylvia Noland OPPOSITION: None Submitted Plaintiff Sylvia Noland (“Plaintiff”), on behalf of herself and acting for the interests of other current and former employees, alleges that Defendants Land Of The Free, L.P., and its owner Jose Luis Nazar committed several wage and hour violations. Plaintiff’s original complaint was filed on August 7, 2018 and a first amended complaint (“FAC”) was filed on January 1, 2019. On June 28, 2019, Plaintiff filed the instant unopposed motion.

  • Name

    SYLVIA NOLAND VS JOSE LUIS NAZAR

  • Case No.

    BC716737

  • Hearing

    Jul 31, 2019

Fourth Cause of Action – Wage Statement Violations The fourth cause of action alleges that the wage statement does not comply with Labor Code § 226(a) since it does not provide the correct gross and net wages, the correct legal entity name of the employer and does not accurately show the total number of hours worked. (Complaint ¶ 49.) The wage statement violations claims are derivative of the claims discussed above.

  • Name

    DELA CRUZ VS MLY WHOLE FOODS INC

  • Case No.

    37-2016-00023294-CU-OE-CTL

  • Hearing

    Apr 12, 2018

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.

  • Name

    DEIDRE GAVIN VS ORANGE TWIST, LLC, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20STCV04602

  • Hearing

    Jul 27, 2020

The parties report that the plaintiffs in this case, along with other similarly situated employees, have submitted their individual wage and hour claims to arbitration. La Laine Holland v Tenet Health Care and Twin Cities Community Hospital 15CVP0226 was filed on August 5, 2015, some 4 to5 months after the Barnard action. Holland is a registered nurse/plaintiff seeking class treatment of violations of wage and hour laws related to hourly non- exempt employees of the hospital.

  • Case No.

    Barnard v Twin Cities Hospital 15CVP0079

  • Hearing

    Mar 27, 2017

  • County

    San Luis Obispo County, CA

Epsilon Plastics, Inc. (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 1308, the Court of Appeal held that plaintiffs could not recover for wage and hour violations where the defendant employer had accurately listed the hours worked by the employees pursuant to the employer’s 12-hour Alternative Workweek Schedule (AWS), which provided for 10 hours of regular pay and two hours of overtime pay, but had not given the employees overtime pay for all hours worked over 8 hours.

  • Name

    THOMAS OTTO VS. FOSTER FARMS, LLC

  • Case No.

    20CECG00807

  • Hearing

    Nov 10, 2020

The underlying complaint in this matter asserts causes of action for wage and hour violations. The cross-complaint alleges that Cross-Defendant informed the general contractor that he was an independent contractor who anticipated filing a mechanic's lien on the project and that Cross-Complainant was hostile to the general contractor's employees. These statements do not relate to the substantive issues raised in the wage and hour causes of action.

  • Name

    EDWARD OGUEJIOFOR VS. DOTUN OYENUGA ET AL

  • Case No.

    CGC14539857

  • Hearing

    Jan 12, 2015

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff David Hidalgo Plaintiff David Hidalgo sues defendant Johnny Simon dba Mashawi Grill, George Simon dba Mashawi Grill, Simon Brothers Investments Inc., Simon Brothers Group Corporation, and Mashawi Grill for various wage and hour law violations.

  • Name

    DAVID HIDALGO VS JOHNNY SIMON ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC634226

  • Hearing

    Oct 30, 2017

BACKGROUND Plaintiff alleges that Defendants hire workers to perform coding and auditing services but misclassify them as independent contractors and subject them to wage and hour violations. The first amended complaint (FAC) is brought on behalf of current and former independent contractors.

  • Name

    PAMELA WARNER PRAX VS THE CODING NETWORK, LLC, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    23STCV04762

  • Hearing

    Aug 22, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

His suit alleges (1) wage violations; (2) wage statement violations; (3) waiting time penalties; and (4) violation of the unfair competition law. Relevantly, Olid v. Westrux International, Inc., et al, Case No. CIVSB2119798 (the “Olid Matter”), was filed on September 20, 2021, nearly six months before the instant case.

  • Name

    **COMPLEX CASE** OLID -V- WESTRUX ONTERNATIONAL, INC. ET AL PRINT

  • Case No.

    CIVSB2119798

  • Hearing

    Feb 14, 2023

  • County

    San Bernardino County, CA

Plaintiff also alleges wage and hour violations.

  • Name

    JUNG VS. CALIFORNIA UNIVERSITY MANAGEMENT AND SCIENCES

  • Case No.

    37-2015-00003374-CU-OE-CTL

  • Hearing

    Oct 02, 2017

He brings a putative wage-and-hour class action on behalf of all non-exempt employees who worked for Defendant at any time in the four years before the case was filed. (Id., ¶ 4.) The complaint alleges six causes of action: principal claims for overtime violations, meal period violations, and rest period violations, as well as derivative claims for wage statement violations, UCL violations, and PAGA. Defendant demurs on two grounds: that the complaint fails to state a cause of action and is uncertain.

  • Name

    ARANGO VS. SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION

  • Case No.

    30-2019-01056839

  • Hearing

    Aug 30, 2019

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.

  • Name

    ANGIOLINA DERENZIN ET AL VS HAWTHORNE INTERNATIONA CORP

  • Case No.

    BC674791

  • Hearing

    Jul 07, 2020

Defendant advocates that contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, resolution of Plaintiff’s arbitration could materially affect this PAGA action because “in order for Plaintiff Gina Barrett to have standing to represent the State in a PAGA action, Gina Barrett must have suffered one or more wage and hour violations.” (Reply 3:1-2.)

  • Name

    GINA BERRETT VS SYNCSTORIES, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20STCV14281

  • Hearing

    Dec 17, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

It reads, in relevant part: Wage and Hour.

  • Name

    PACPIZZA VS CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD’S

  • Case No.

    MSC18-00249

  • Hearing

    Jun 08, 2018

Minimum wage in California for businesses with over 26 employees was $12 an hour in 2019, $13 an hour in 2020, and $14 an hour in 2021. (Cal. Lab. Code §1182.12(b)(1).) Minimum wage in California for businesses with less than 26 employees was $11 an hour in 2019, $12 an hour in 2020, and $13 an hour in 2021. (Id. at (b)(2).) Going by the highest minimum wage rate, $14, 30% more is $18.20. The rates provided are more than 30 percent of the state minimum wage rate as the statute requires. ( See Cal. Lab.

  • Name

    DENNIS BELTRAN VS GRANITE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY

  • Case No.

    21AVCV00561

  • Hearing

    Oct 19, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Based on Plaintiff’s representation that he intended to remove the wage and hour claims from the First Action, the Court concludes that the allegations in the unfair competition cause of action incorporating the wage and hour allegations are no longer applicable in the First Action. With the wage and hour causes of action dismissed, the First Action involves individual issues distinct from the PAGA claims in the Second Action.

  • Name

    NEJAT SETAREH VS AMERICAN COVER DESIGN 26, INC., ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19STCV22707

  • Hearing

    Oct 16, 2020

In addition to wage and hour violations, the complaint alleges Defendants terminated Zuniga because she noted a gender-based pay discrepancy and requested equal pay. This civil law case is currently pending in Department 26 of the Stanley Mosk Courthouse with a Case Management Conference set for October 30, 2019. · Cristobal, et al v. U.S.

  • Name

    FILIBERTO LOPEZ RUIZ VS BP OVERTURE INC ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC708576

  • Hearing

    Sep 26, 2019

(Herrera) (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 365, 370 [notice allows Agency to act first on more serious violations, such as wage and hour violations, and gives employers opportunity to cure less serious violations].) Failure to plead compliance with this prelawsuit notice requirement is fatal to claims for civil penalties under Lab.C. § 2699.5. (Caliber Bodyworks, Inc. v. Sup.Ct. (Herrera), supra, 134 Cal.App.4th at 381-382.)

  • Name

    CLEMENTS VS. AVANIR PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.

  • Case No.

    30-2016-00861739-CU-OE-CXC

  • Hearing

    Sep 01, 2017

Plaintiff was paid $12 per hour—the minimum wage. He never explicitly states that rate, but says he was paid $176.16 on a day he worked 14.68 hours. (¶ 23.) $176.16 / 14.68 hours = $12 per hour. His claim that he is owed $5.32 for every hour worked (the difference between $12 and the incorrect effective rate of $6.68, totaling $126,552.16) is invalid. Because plaintiff was paid the minimum wage, he has no damages on his first cause of action instead of the $200,000 he claims.

  • Name

    MANIK KHARB VS AVANI & K, INC, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20STCV30914

  • Hearing

    Jul 16, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

Labor Code, §§ 218.5(a) and 1194(a) both provide for an award of attorney fees in connection with claims for unpaid wages, minimum wage violations, and overtime violations. The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s counsel’s billing records and finds that the time spent on this matter is reasonable. The Court also finds that Plaintiff’s counsel’s rate of $500/ hour is reasonable given his experience. Accordingly, the Court awards Plaintiff the requested $20,000, which will be reflected on the Default Judgment.

  • Name

    HUGHES VS. ISBELL

  • Case No.

    30-2016-00871468-CU-OE-CJC

  • Hearing

    Jan 24, 2019

While Defendant has established that Plaintiffs were dilatory in seeking amendment as to the Labor Code wage and hour claims, Defendant has not established that they will be unduly prejudiced by the amendment. The trial date is not until October 2015, giving Defendant time to conduct additional discovery, if necessary. Further, wage and hour violations were pled in the original complaint in the PAGA and Violation of Bus. and Prof. Code sec. 17200 causes of action.

  • Name

    JOSHUA WILLIAMS ET AL VS. SWISSPORT NORTH AMERICA, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORAT ET AL

  • Case No.

    CGC13531273

  • Hearing

    Jan 20, 2015

She brings this action for wage and hour violations and for wrongful termination/retaliation for complaining about Defendants’ wage and hour practices. Jeffrey M. Cohon of Law Offices of Jeffrey M. Cohon moves to be relieved as counsel for Defendant The Sach Company. TENTATIVE RULING: The hearing on the motion to be relieved as counsel is CONTINUED to November 13, 2018. The client was not given sufficient notice of this motion.

  • Name

    PATRICIA ARANA VS THE SACH COMPANY ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC633760

  • Hearing

    Oct 22, 2018

Caro was employed by Betty Lou Moneyhun and asserts various wage and hour claims and Labor Code violations. Ms. Moneyhun is deceased and Defendant Brenda Franklin is now the Trustee of the Moneyhun trust. She cross-complains for financial elder abuse. She alleges Ms. Moneyhun, a devout Christian, allowed Mr. Caro, who lived across the street, to live in her home after he fell on hard times. He eventually moved his wife and child into the premises and “took over”. Ms.

  • Name

    EDDIE RUIZ CARO VS BRENDA FRANKLIN ET AL

  • Case No.

    NC060306

  • Hearing

    Dec 22, 2016

Plaintiff has brought wage and hour claims against the individual owners, directors and officers of Francis Taylor, Inc.; however, corporate officers (or directors) are not personally liable under the California Labor Code for a corporate employer's failure to pay its employees contractual or statutorily-mandated wages, overtime compensation, vested vacation time and/or unreimbursed business expenses. See Lab.C. §§ 201-204, 210, 227.3, 510, 1194, 1194.2, 2802.

  • Name

    BARU VS. FRANCIS TAYLOR INC

  • Case No.

    37-2017-00039718-CU-OE-NC

  • Hearing

    Jun 07, 2018

An "'aggrieved employee'" means any person who was employed by the alleged violator and against whom one or more of the alleged violations was committed." Id. at subd. (c). Plaintiffs allege they were employed by defendant and subjected to the alleged wage and hour violations. These allegations are sufficient to show standing under PAGA. For the foregoing reasons, the demurrer is overruled. Plaintiffs are directed to serve notice on all parties within 2 court days of this ruling.

  • Name

    ARCE VS NEWTON DELIVERIES SERVICE INC

  • Case No.

    37-2016-00033829-CU-OE-CTL

  • Hearing

    Sep 20, 2017

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.

  • Name

    WATTS VS T.R.L. SYSTEMS INCORPORATED

  • Case No.

    30-2019-01102457

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

For example, in calculating the minimum wage and overtime violations, Counsel uses a blended hourly rate of $35 per hour which is drastically higher than minimum wage during the Class Period. He does not explain which workweeks violated minimum wage laws or how often overtime was worked. If Plaintiffs are arguing only that they were not paid for all hours worked because of the autodeduct for the unused meal and rest breaks, it is not clear how minimum wage and overtime laws apply.

  • Name

    CARR VS K&B ELECTRIC

  • Case No.

    RIC1904970

  • Hearing

    May 10, 2021

But the question of whether Labor Code and wage order violations were committed will depend on the underlying wage and hour policies and practices of a particular defendant. These differences outweigh the overlap in the Included Actions. · The convenience of parties, witnesses, and counsel This factor is neutral.

  • Name

    WORLD CLASS DISTRIBUTION WAGE AND HOUR CASES

  • Case No.

    JCCP5158

  • Hearing

    May 11, 2021

Please wait a moment while we load this page.

New Envelope