Wage and Hour Violations

Useful Rulings on Wage and Hour Violations

Recent Rulings on Wage and Hour Violations

201-225 of 3251 results

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

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

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

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

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

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

ARMENTA V. SEACA PACKAGING, INC.

She explains that, while she was working as a machine operator for defendant from August of 2015 to June of 2017, defendant adopted an “Alternative Workweek Schedule” (AWS) that required her and other employees to work alternating four 12-hour shifts with three days off, then three 12-hour shifts with four days off. (Id. at ¶ 3.) Defendant was supposed to pay her 10 hours of straight time and 2 hours of overtime under the AWS. (Id. at ¶ 4.)

  • Hearing

    Apr 20, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

IN RE COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTERS OF THE CENTRAL COAST, INC. WAGE AND HOUR CASES

All three lawsuits alleged wage and hour violations. (Supra, 29 Cal.App.5th at p. 728.) Following mediation in the Edwards action, the parties reached a preliminary settlement; thereafter the Edwards plaintiffs amended their complaint, which amendment “basically brought the Edwards case in line with the allegations in Wilson and Torres.” (Id. at p. 730.) After the mediation but before a motion for preliminary approval was filed, the Torres plaintiffs filed a motion to intervene.

  • Hearing

    Apr 01, 2020

TOTAL AIRPORT SERVICES WAGE AND HOUR CASES

TOTAL AIRPORT SERVICES WAGE AND HOUR CASES PETITION FOR COORDINATION TENTATIVE RULING Grant petition for coordination; recommend and determine Los Angeles County to be the appropriate venue for the coordinated matter to be heard, and select the Second Appellate District as the reviewing court with appellate jurisdiction which will promote the ends of justice DISCUSSION I. Background Plaintiffs brought these putative wage-and-hour class actions against Defendant Total Airport Services, LLC (“TAS”).

  • Hearing

    Mar 21, 2020

COLLINS VS. JUST ENERGY MARKETING CORP.

As a result, the doctrine of collateral estoppel applies to plaintiff Collins’ wage and hour allegations in his second cause of action, barring those claims. Res judicata does not apply because plaintiff Evangelista, not plaintiff Collins, brought the federal action, but both plaintiffs had the same attorneys, triggering collateral estoppel. Defendants are ordered to give notice of the ruling unless notice is waived.

  • Hearing

    Mar 20, 2020

DESTINY HITCHCOCK VS SANDRA CASTELLINO

In addition, the court may make any other order as may be appropriate to protect the person from unreasonable or oppressive demands, including unreasonable violations of the right of privacy of the person.”

  • Hearing

    Mar 18, 2020

TIMOTHY WEST AN INDIVIDUAL ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND THE PROPOSED CLASSS VS. FPI MANAGEMENT INC

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

  • Hearing

    Mar 18, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

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

    Mar 18, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

VIBRANTCARE WAGE AND HOUR CASES

Notice Regarding Continuances of Complex Civil Cases Scheduled in Dept. 32 of the Sacramento Superior Court on Friday, April 10, 2020 This Notice is to inform you that due to the Emergency Order issued by the Presiding Judge of the Sacramento Superior Court on March 17, 2020 that all civil matters are suspended from March 17, 2020 to April 16, 2020 the Court hereby continues the Case Management Conference (CMC) currently scheduled in VibrantCare Wage and Hour Cases, JCCP 5025 for Friday, April 10, 2020 in Department

  • Hearing

    Mar 18, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

MILNER VS BRIDGE HOUSING CORPORATION [E-FILE]

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

    Mar 17, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

  « first    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 131     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.