Wage and Hour Violations

Useful Rulings on Wage and Hour Violations

Recent Rulings on Wage and Hour Violations

151-175 of 3210 results

KIMBERLY JOY JOHNSON VS. ALUTIIQ, LLC

This case involves employment-related claims arising from alleged wage-and-hour violations, including non-payment of wages, missed meal and rest breaks, inaccurate wage statements. The operative complaint is the First Amended Complaint filed February 27, 2019 ("FAC").

  • Hearing

    Jun 18, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

ISAIAH WHITE VS. SACRAMENTO REGIONAL TRANSIT DISTRICT

In this action, Plaintiff alleges that his former employer, Sacramento Regional Transit District, committed violations of various provisions of California Labor and seeks on behalf of the class and aggrieved co-workers, damages and penalties for these purported violations. The action was originally filed on September 10, 2018. The Complaint alleges a single cause of action for violations of Labor Code sections 1194, 1194.2, 1197, and 1197.1 and section 4 of IWC Wage Order 9-2001.

  • Hearing

    Jun 18, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

PANIAGUA V BRODER BROS.

Wagner & Jones recently had a class action verdict in a wage and hour class action affirmed on appeal in the Ninth Circuit, according to the Fresno Bee. See https://www.fresnobee.com/news/local/article239018333.html, “California Truck Drivers score Millions from Walmart after US Court of Appeals Verdict (January 6, 2020). That firm has also tried a class action employment case in this Court. As well-qualified local counsel were available in Fresno, and Fresno rates are appropriate.

  • Hearing

    Jun 17, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

IVONNE WELCH VS SHADDAI MANAGEMENT

SUSTAIN the demurrer to the wage and hour claim (eleventh, twelfth and thirteenth causes of action) and the claim for PAGA penalties (fourteenth cause of action) without leave to amend. Payments owed under the terms of the Settlement do not constitute wages/commission. Further, the PAGA action is barred by the applicable one-year statute of limitations.

  • Hearing

    Jun 17, 2020

  • Judge

    Raquel A. Marquez

  • County

    Riverside County, CA

JAQUELIN BRAVO V. KAN HOLDINGS, ET. AL.

Nature of Proceedings: Case Management Order Employment discrimination case/ wage and hour claims. Court will set CCP sec. 631 fees posting date – discuss ADR options with counsel – CMADRESS or private mediation.

  • Hearing

    Jun 16, 2020

RAUB VS SYNERGY ONE LENDING INCORPORATED [EFILE]

Strength of Case: Defendant contends its wage and hour practices were compliant with California law. The differing views of the parties as to the facts are recounted in paragraphs 18-21 of the Han declaration (ROA 29). Plaintiffs have also presented a thoughtful damages model (Han Decl. at 41-50). The notional damages have been discounted for appropriate risk factors. B.

  • Hearing

    Jun 16, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

ESPINOZA VS KELLERMEYER BERGENSONS SERVICES LLC

Ruiz was a wage and hour case brought by an automotive service technician against his employer, alleging individual, class, and PAGA claims. The Ruiz court found that the evidence was insufficient to support a finding that the electronic signature on arbitration agreement was an act by the automotive service technician employee, in order to compel arbitration. Ruiz, 232 Cal.App.4th at 843-44.

  • Hearing

    Jun 16, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

RAUB VS SYNERGY ONE LENDING INCORPORATED [EFILE]

Strength of Case: Defendant contends its wage and hour practices were compliant with California law. The differing views of the parties as to the facts are recounted in paragraphs 18-21 of the Han declaration (ROA 29). Plaintiffs have also presented a thoughtful damages model (Han Decl. at 41-50). The notional damages have been discounted for appropriate risk factors. B.

  • Hearing

    Jun 16, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

KOULOURAS VS AFFINITIV, INC.

Alliantgroup, L.P. (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 141, 152 [finding forum selection clause “unenforceable as against public policy because it purports to waive the unwaivable wage and hour protections the Labor Code provides to all California employees.”]; Application Group, supra, 61 Cal.App.4th at 895 [“It is quite clear that a covenant prohibiting a California employee from working for a competitor after termination of his or her employment violates section 16600”]; Frame v.

  • Hearing

    Jun 15, 2020

HOLMAN VS AMERICAN SUGAR REFIN

., violated various wage and hour law requirements. Specifically, plaintiffs allege that wage statements did not accurately identify the proper rate of pay when double overtime wages were paid. The gross settlement amount is $240,000. The settlement was negotiated with the assistance of an experienced mediator. Notice of the PAGA claims was provided to the Labor & Workforce Development Agency. The settlement motion was provided to the LWDA on September 12, 2019. The LWDA has not responded.

  • Hearing

    Jun 11, 2020

VAESAU VS. PRECISION CABINETS

HEARING ON MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT FILED BY NANCY FILIGA VAESAU * TENTATIVE RULING: * Plaintiff Nancy Vaesau seeks final approval of a class-action settlement of this matter alleging that defendant PCT Enterprises, Inc. dba Precision Cabinets violated various wage and hour laws, particularly meal and rest break policies and rounding policies. Preliminary approval was granted on January 23, 2020. A.

  • Hearing

    Jun 11, 2020

AMBER CASTELLON V. VSS INTERNATIONAL, INC.

In Williams, the plaintiff, acting as representative of all employees of Marshall’s under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA), sued Marshalls for alleged wage and hour violations. (Williams, supra, 3 Cal.5th at pp. 538-539.) In discovery, the plaintiff sought the contact information of Marshall’s other California employees. Marshall’s objected that this request violated the privacy rights of third parties.

  • Hearing

    Jun 11, 2020

JUAN NAVA V FRESH VENTURE FOODS LLC (RELATED CASE 18CV04448 – MENDOZA V. FRESH VENTURE FOODS, LLC)

Nature of Proceedings: Case Management Conference This is a wage and hour / PAGA claims case. Mediation was completed on 8/1/19. Counsel to discuss current status of case(s).

  • Hearing

    Jun 09, 2020

CASHCALL, INC. V. NICHOLSON

The minimum hourly wage for the State of California is $13, which calculates to $1,126.58 for a semimonthly period ($13.00/hour x 86 2/3). (§ 706.050(b)(3); Labor Code, § 1182.12.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 09, 2020

CHRISTOPHER ONTIVEROS V. BAKER CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION, 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, Baker is a concrete construction contractor in the residential, industrial, and commercial markets. (First Amended Class Action Complaint (“FAC”), ¶ 2.) Plaintiff was employed by Baker in California from July 2016 to January 2018 as a non-exempt, hourly employee. (Id., ¶ 3.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 05, 2020

HECTOR LUNA V. TRIPLE CANOPY, INC., ET AL.

Class members who do not opt out of the settlement will release “all claims that have been or could have been alleged or asserted in any of the pleadings that have been filed in the Actions, including without limitation the Consolidated Amended Complaint … and all violations asserted or that could have been asserted in any notice sent to the LWDA referenced in any of the pleadings,” including specified wage and hour claims.

  • Hearing

    Jun 05, 2020

XUEHUA WANG, ET AL. V. ART OF REFLEXOLOGY MILPITAS, LLC, ET AL.

This is a class action alleging that defendants misclassified employees as independent contractors and committed other wage and hour violations. Before the Court is plaintiffs’ motion for terminating or, alternatively, issue or evidence sanctions, as well as monetary sanctions, due to defendants’ asserted violations of several court orders.

  • Hearing

    Jun 05, 2020

FLORES V. SANTA BARBARA FARMS

According to plaintiff, defendant was exposed to the following maximum amounts in the various wage and hour categories: $2,170,981.75 for meal period violations; $604,684 for rest period violations; $339,671.59 for overtime/work-not-paid violations; over $1.3 million in wage statement violations; and over $1.3 million in civil penalties under PAGA.

  • Hearing

    Jun 02, 2020

CIPRIANO PONCE V. CARLOS FARIAS

Cipriano Ponce (“Ponce”) and Carlos Farias (“Farias”) filed this wage and hour class action against Agro-Jal Farming Enterprises, Inc. (“Agro-Jal”), Paloma Packing, Inc. (“Paloma”), and Frank Maldonado (collectively “Defendants”), on July 15, 2015.1 An amended complaint was thereafter filed in September 2015.

  • Hearing

    Jun 02, 2020

CHANGPING LI VS ZHAODONG MA ET AL

Plaintiff claims that defendants have engaged in a system of willful violations of the California Labor Codes by creating and maintaining policies, practices, and customs that unlawfully denied Plaintiff: (1) minimum wages and overtime wages; (2) statutorily mandated meal and rest periods, as well as regular pay resultant therefrom; (3) willful failure to pay compensation owed to Plaintiff in a timely manner upon termination; and (4) willful failure to provide Plaintiff with accurate semi-monthly itemized wage

  • Hearing

    May 28, 2020

MAXIMO BONGOLAN V. DAVID NEWTON, ET AL.

Background This is a wage-and-hour action. Plaintiff Maximo Bongolan alleges defendants John Scaglione and Janet Harper-Beam hired him to work as an in-home caregiver for defendant David Newton (collectively, “Defendants”). According to Bongolan’s first amended complaint, Scaglione and Harper-Beam recruited and hired him to work as a live-in caregiver after Newton had a stroke. Bongolan worked 24-hour shifts five to six times a week.

  • Hearing

    May 28, 2020

VAESAU VS. PRECISION CABINETS

HEARING ON MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT FILED BY NANCY FILIGA VAESAU * TENTATIVE RULING: * Plaintiff Nancy Vaesau seeks preliminary approval of a class-action settlement and PAGA settlement of this matter alleging that defendant PCT Enterprises, Inc. dba Precision Cabinets violated various wage and hour laws, particularly meal and rest break policies and rounding policies. A. Terms of the Settlement. The gross settlement amount is $750,000, non-reversionary.

  • Hearing

    May 28, 2020

JENNIFER ADAMS VS MV TRANSPORTATION, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

The settlement was negotiated at arm’s length under the supervision of an experienced wage and hour mediator, Jeffery Ross. The settlement agreement appears to be fair, reasonable, and adequate. (Code of Civil Procedure section 382.) The motion is granted on the terms requested. Appearances are required to set further deadlines regarding Final Approval and to discuss the progress of the White litigation. The court will sign an order consistent with Plaintiff’s motion. Ross 5/28/2020 ……………….

  • Hearing

    May 28, 2020

JOEL MAGANA VS. H & D ELECTRIC

Plaintiff asserts eight causes of action against Defendant H & D Electric ("Defendant"), including seven causes of action on behalf of the putative class for various wage and hour violations and the eight cause of action for violation of the Private Attorney General Act ("PAGA").

  • Hearing

    May 26, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

JERRY LEWIS VS VALLEY SOBER LIVING INC. ET AL.

He makes other allegations including that Defendants failed to provide accurate itemized wage statement, maintain records of hours worked, timely pay final wages, provide rest and meal breaks, etc. (Id. at ¶¶ 12-18.) Plaintiff set forth eight causes of action for various wage and hour violations under the California Labor Code and unfair/unlawful competition under the California Business and Professions Code. Defendants filed the instant demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint on November 18, 2019.

  • Hearing

    May 21, 2020

  « 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.