Wage and Hour Violations

Useful Rulings on Wage and Hour Violations

Recent Rulings on Wage and Hour Violations

76-100 of 3228 results

HAYNES V. MILPITAS GROCERY OUTLET, ET AL.

INTRODUCTION 24 This is a putative class action arising out of various alleged wage and hour violations. 25 The Class Action Complaint for Damages, filed on February 14, 2018, sets forth causes of action 26 titled: (1) Violation of California Labor Code §§ 510 and 1198; (2) Violation of California 27 Labor Code §§ 26.7 and 512(a); (3) Violation of California Labor Code § 226.7; (4) Violation of 28 California Labor Code §§ 1194, 1197, and 1197.1; (5) Violation of California Labor Code 1 §§ 201 and 202; (6)

  • Hearing

    Jul 17, 2020

PREXXIE PASCUAL, ET AL. V. SATELLITE HEALTHCARE, INC., ET AL.

., alleging wage and hour violations. Before the Court is plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary approval of a settlement, which is unopposed. I. Factual and Procedural Background As alleged in the operative First Amended Class Action Complaint (“FAC”), plaintiff Prexxie Pascual was employed as a Registered Nurse by defendant at its facility in Tracy from about November 2016 until February 5, 2019. (FAC, ¶ 8.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 17, 2020

MARTIN Z. JADAN V. COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, ET AL.

This is a putative class and Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) action on behalf of employees of Costco Wholesale Corporation, 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, plaintiff worked for Costco as a non-exempt, hourly employee from approximately November 2017 through January 3, 2018.

  • Hearing

    Jul 17, 2020

KURT AUTREY V. LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, ET AL.

This percentage is typical for wage and hour cases, and the Court finds it is reasonable considering counsel’s lodestar of $85,350 (resulting in a negative multiplier). (See Laffitte v. Robert Half Intern. Inc. (Cal. 2016) 1 Cal.5th 480, 488, 503-504 [trial court did not abuse its discretion in approving fee award of 1/3 of the common fund, cross-checked against a lodestar resulting in a multiplier of 2.03 to 2.13].)

  • Hearing

    Jul 17, 2020

CAITLIN GEENEN V. HOUZZ, INC., ET AL.

This is a putative class and Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) action alleging wage and hour violations by defendant Houzz, Inc. Before the Court is Houzz’s motion to compel arbitration of plaintiff’s individual claims, dismiss her putative class claims, and stay these proceedings in their entirety. Plaintiff opposes Houzz’s motion.

  • Hearing

    Jul 17, 2020

HOLLENCREST BAYVIEW PARTNERS L.P. VS FROST MANAGEMENT COMPANY LLC

The parties to the case had stipulated that their wage and hour class action settlement be submitted to an arbitrator for approval and then to the court for confirmation. The court refused to enter an order on the stipulation, finding that the parties did not “have the authority” to enter into the stipulation on behalf of the class and, further, that any class action settlement must be reviewed and approved by a court, not an arbitrator. The case does not support the request here.

  • Hearing

    Jul 17, 2020

JORDAN VAZQUEZ VS S & J TOWING SERVICE INCORPORATED

Plaintiff’s operative Complaint alleges the following causes of action: (1) failure to pay wages, (2) failure to pay overtime compensation, (3) failure to provide meal and rest periods, (4) failure to provide itemized wage and hour statements, (5) waiting time penalties, (6) failure to permit inspection of personnel and payroll records, (7) unfair competition (Business and Professions Code § 17200 et seq.), and (8) conversion. Defendant now moves to compel Plaintiff to attend deposition.

  • Hearing

    Jul 17, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

WARNER VS. FRY'S ELECTRONICS

Background of the Case and Terms of Settlement This a PAGA case (not a class action), alleging violations of the Labor Code concerning a number of issues. The primary issue, at least based on the matters in the court file, concerns a “Pay Calculation Agreement,” under which salespersons paid on commission whose commission in a given pay period fell below minimum wage would be paid minimum wage for that period, but the difference would be treated as an advance and deducted from future commissions.

  • Hearing

    Jul 16, 2020

CLARENCE RAMIREZ V. BRUKIEWICZ INFRASTRUCTURE CORP.

Clarence Ramirez, Israel Garcia, Manuel Monclova, Marcus Mendez, Victor Garcia, Jordan Dahlquist, Stephen Chin (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed this wage and hour action on March 4, 2014, on behalf of themselves and as putative class representatives. The named Defendants are Brukiewicz Infrastructure Corporation, Santa Margarita Construction, John Brukiewicz, and Daniel Brukiewicz (collectively, “Defendants”).

  • Hearing

    Jul 16, 2020

RAMIREZ VS VELASQUEZ INTERIORS LLC

Airlines, S.A. (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 466, that Plaintiff's wage and hour allegations fail across-the-board because they "parrot the statute" without reciting the underlying facts of what occurred. The focus of the dispute in this wage and hour case is the issue of misclassification as an independent contractor. The wage and hour violations all appear to flow from that misclassification.

  • Hearing

    Jul 16, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

TESSITORE VS MACYS WEST STORES INC

Section 224 provides in pertinent part that "[t]he provisions of Sections 221, 222 and 223 shall in no way make it unlawful for an employer to withhold or divert any portion of an employee's wages ... when a deduction is expressly authorized in writing by the employee to cover ... deductions not amounting to a rebate or deduction from the standard wage arrived at ... pursuant to wage agreement or statute...."

  • Hearing

    Jul 16, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

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 16, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

IBARRA VS. TECHNET PARTNERS, INC.

Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint alleges both wage and hour claims and FEHA violations, which are unrelated to Plaintiff’s wage and hour claims. Although Defendant contends Defendant needs to know which standard will apply in order to properly defend against Plaintiff’s claims, it is possible Defendant may be required to litigate under both standards. The California Supreme Court did not foreclose the possibility of a two-test approach to distinguish between an employee and independent contractor.

  • Hearing

    Jul 16, 2020

ELOISA MARTINEZ VS SNACKERZ, INC. , 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 16, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

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 16, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS WAGE AND HOUR CASES JCCP5083 [E-FILE]

All four actions involve similar claims against Defendant for wage and hour violations. The relevant time periods in each action also overlap. Marcelino alleges Defendant committed wage and hour violations, including: "a. Failure to pay the correct rate of pay for all overtime worked; b. Failure to pay the correct rate of pay for missed meal and rest period premiums; c. Failure to provide compliant meal and rest periods; d. Failure to pay all minimum, regular and overtime wages; e.

  • Hearing

    Jul 15, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

LUCKY'S TWO-WAY RADIOS, INC. ET AL VS FRANK J. CANNATA

The SAXC against Cross-Defendants alleges several causes of action including breach of contract, indemnity, labor code retaliation and wage and hour violations, false pretenses, fraud, battery, stored communications violations, trespass, and unfair competition. [Tentative] Ruling LTWR’s Motion to Compel Discovery is GRANTED, if Cannata has not served code-compliant responses by the date of this hearing.

  • Hearing

    Jul 15, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

  • Judge

    Paul A. Bacigalupo or Virginia Keeny

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

ASHLEY MASTERTON VS NEW BOX SOLUTIONS LLC ET AL

Defense counsel attests that his hourly rate is $325 per hour, while his supervising partner’s is $525 per hour. No reply brief was filed. The court will award a reduced amount of $3,250 based on the nature of the motion and the work required. Conclusion Defendant’s Motion for Sanctions and to Compel Compliance is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to provide supplemental responses to requests 12-15, 18-19 and 22-23 within thirty days of this hearing.

  • Hearing

    Jul 15, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

MARCO ORTIZ VS RELATED ET AL

(1) PETITION TO VACATE ARBITRATION AWARD; (2) PETITION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARD MOVING PARTY: (1) Plaintiff Marco Ortiz; (2) Defendants Related Management Company, L.P. and The Related Companies of California RESPONDING PARTY(S): (1) Defendants Related Management Company, L.P. and The Related Companies of California; (2) Plaintiff Marco Ortiz STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS: Plaintiff alleges wage and hour violations, as well as disability discrimination and harassment.

  • Hearing

    Jul 15, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

CLARK VS ANNTAYLOR RETAIL INC [E-FILE]

Final Approval This is a wage and hour class action on behalf of current and former non-exempt employees of the retail stores operated by Ann Taylor Retail, Inc., Ann Inc. and Ascena Retail Group, Inc.'s subsidiaries at any time between March 11, 2015 and February 14, 2020 (but only through May 6, 2019 for employees of Marices Incorporated). The class includes 20,725 members. Johnson Decl., ¶ 13. The Court granted preliminary approval on February 14, 2020. ROA # 28.

  • Hearing

    Jul 14, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

DONATHAN V. INLAND STAR DISTRIBUTION CENTERS, INC.

Inland Star also claims special damages in the form of attorney costs incurred in connection with defending against plaintiff’s wage and hour claims, pointing out that an alternative measure of damages in a conversion case is a sum equal to the amount of loss legally caused by the conversion which could have been avoided with a proper degree of prudence. (Moreno v. Greenwood Auto Center (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 201, 209-210; Civ. Code, § 3336.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 14, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

LUCIANNA BORREGO VS. RALEYS FAMILY OF FINE STORES

The Court agrees with Plaintiffs that this was not a garden-variety "wage and hour" class action but was an employment discrimination class action. The Court notes that these representative service awards may also serve as consideration for the additional "separate release" that each of the named Plaintiffs will sign in their capacity as Class Representatives. (Settlement Agreement § 77(b).) That "separate release" is broader than the release to be signed by non-representative Class Members. (Id. § 37.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 13, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

LUCIANNA BORREGO VS. RALEYS FAMILY OF FINE STORES

The Court agrees with Plaintiffs that this was not a garden-variety "wage and hour" class action but was an employment discrimination class action. The Court notes that these representative service awards may also serve as consideration for the additional "separate release" that each of the named Plaintiffs will sign in their capacity as Class Representatives. (Settlement Agreement § 77(b).) That "separate release" is broader than the release to be signed by non-representative Class Members. (Id. § 37.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 13, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

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

  « first    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 130     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.