Wage and Hour Violations

Useful Rulings on Wage and Hour Violations

Recent Rulings on Wage and Hour Violations

HARRY D MCGOVERN VS. JIM CARTER

The parties dispute both whether McGovern made sufficient efforts to hire local counsel and whether $700 an hour is a reasonable prevailing rate in Sacramento. The Court need not reach the first issue, as in light of all the relevant factors, including its own experience in the Sacramento legal market, it finds that $700 an hour is an appropriate hourly wage for a case of this nature and complexity. (See Heritage Pac. Fin., LLC v.

  • Hearing

    Aug 14, 2020

TAYLER HANNES VS PARKS MANAGEMENT COMPANY

In a complaint filed on March 4, 2020, against defendant Parks Management Company, plaintiffs Tayler Hannes and Paul Voigt asserted causes of action for 1) failure to pay wages and/or overtime; 2) meal break violations (Labor Code § 226.7); 3) rest break violations (Labor Code § 226.7); 4) waiting time penalties (Labor Code § 203); 5) unreimbursed mileage (Labor Code §§ 221, 2802); 6) wage statement violations (Labor Code § 226(a)); 7) violation of Labor Code § 204; and 8) unfair business practices.

  • Hearing

    Aug 14, 2020

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

BUCHANAN V. ARAMARK CAMPUS, LLC, ET AL.

INTRODUCTION 24 This is a representative action brought pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act of 25 2004 (“PAGA”) arising out of various alleged wage and hour violations.

  • Hearing

    Aug 14, 2020

MARTINEZ V. FRITO-LAY, INC., ET AL.

INTRODUCTION 24 This is a putative class action and representative action arising out of various alleged 25 wage and hour violations.

  • Hearing

    Aug 14, 2020

GUYSI V. BOMBARDIER TRANSPORTATION SERVICES USA CORPORATION, ET AL.

The court now issues its tentative ruling as 22 follows: wage and hour violations. The Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”), filed December 13, 2017, 26 sets forth the following causes of action: (1) Failure to Provide Meal Periods; (2) Failure to 27 Provide Rest Periods; (3) Failure to Pay Hourly Wages; (4) Failure to Provide Accurate Written 28 1 Wage Statements; (5) Failure to Timely Pay All Final Wages; (6) Unfair Competition; and 2 (7) Civil Penalties. 3 The parties have reached a settlement.

  • Hearing

    Aug 14, 2020

EDGAR PRADO VS CASTA CONSTRUCTION INC.

Plaintiff’s complaint contains several causes of action for alleged Labor Code violations, including wrongful termination, violation of the whistleblower statute, wage and hour violations, etc. Defendant now moves to require Plaintiff to file an undertaking in the amount of $54,300.00 to secure an award of costs and attorneys’ fees pursuant to CCP 1030.

  • Hearing

    Aug 14, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

XIUFANG WANG, ET AL. VS VALU MART CO., ET AL.

Loe argues that the subpoenas are improper because he has not made any claims for personal injuries or wage loss claims in this action or cross-action, and thus has not put his medical condition, employment history, or financial records at issue. He also argues that the subpoenas are impermissibly broad without any limitation as to time and that Buy Low seeks sensitive information. Loe argues that the financial/payroll records are not discoverable.

  • Hearing

    Aug 14, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

HERNANDEZ VS. ST. JUDE MEDICAL CENTER

This lawsuit deals only with allegedly inaccurate wage statements, and so for plaintiff to seek all of defendant’s policies, not even all its wage and hour policies, is overbroad, and no good cause exists to compel either a further response or the production of any documents. Plaintiff could have drafted a narrower document request but chose not to do so, at her peril. Defendant is ordered to give notice of the ruling unless notice is waived.

  • Hearing

    Aug 14, 2020

RAMOS V. MEDINA, ET AL.

Here, Ramos’ counsel has submitted a declaration requesting that the Court award his client fees and costs in the amount of $9,619, which is comprised of the following: 16.3 attorney hours to prepare the anti-SLAPP motion at $290 per hour ($4,727); one anticipated hour at $290 to review the opposition; eight anticipated hours at $290 drafting a reply ($2,320); 1.6 senior attorney hours at $395 per hour reviewing the motion to strike ($632); and three anticipated hours at $550 per hour preparing for, travel to

  • Hearing

    Aug 13, 2020

MACHAIN VS. SST SENIOR CARE

This is a PAGA (Labor Code section 2699, et seq.) wage and hour case where Plaintiff claims that she and other aggrieved employees regularly worked more than eight hours a day or forty hours a week without overtime pay and that they were not given the legally required rest and meal breaks or pay for those periods.

  • Hearing

    Aug 13, 2020

KUTAS V. REHAB FITNESS, INC.

This is a joint venture and wage/hour claim between family members. Plaintiffs began working for defendants (their cousins) and their fitness business in 2011. Plaintiffs contend they were denied appropriate wages, expense reimbursement and documentation. Plaintiffs further contend that they entered into a written agreement with defendants, making them part owners (as well as employees) of the fitness business. Defendants filed a crossclaim, asserting a breach of the various partnership understandings.

  • Hearing

    Aug 13, 2020

HILLARY CHRISTINE LIMB VS. CITY OF FOLSOM

Please be advised there is a $30.00 fee for court reporting services, which must be paid at the time of the hearing, for each civil proceeding lasting less than one hour. (Govt. Code § 68086(a)(1)(A).) The Court Reporter will not report any proceeding unless a request is made and the requisite fees are paid in advance of the hearing. FACTS This motion follows a jury trial in the above captioned case which commenced on February 10, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Aug 13, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

LONDON TRUST MEDIA, INC. VS JON ROUDIER

On August 5, 2019, Roudier filed a cross-complaint against London Trust Media and Mission Critical, LLC for breach of an employment agreement and wage and hour violations. On December 30, 2019, Mission Critical filed a cross-complaint against Roudier for breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty, alleging he had improperly solicited Mission Critical employees to leave the company. On March 23, 2020, Roudier filed a demurrer and motion to strike to Mission Critical’s cross-complaint.

  • Hearing

    Aug 13, 2020

SUBIONO WASITO ET AL VS SANTY KAZALI ET AL

Background: This is a wage and hour action by plaintiffs Subiono Wasito and Enny Soenjoto, who were formerly employed at a Days Inn motel establishment owned and operated by three named defendants, Adi Kazali, Santy Kazali, and Harry Kazali.

  • Hearing

    Aug 12, 2020

JUSTINO VALERIANO JIMENEZ VS CASA LEADERS HP, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

., alleging six causes of action based on various wage and hour Labor Code violations. On May 11, 2020, Defendant filed a motion to compel arbitration based on the Mutual Arbitration Agreement between Plaintiff and Defendant. On July 21, 2020, Plaintiff filed an opposition arguing that Defendant has not met its burden to establish the existence of an enforceable arbitration agreement and that the agreement is unconscionable.[1] On July 27, 2020, Defendant filed a reply. A.

  • Hearing

    Aug 12, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

GONZALEZ ORTIS VS SAN- VAL INC HEARING RE: MOTION TO/FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION 04/24/20 BY 08:30

Plaintiffs’ claim is based upon a company-wide policy that applied to all non-exempt gardening maintenance crew members and violated basic wage and hour laws. Also, the particular job classification does not appear to be particularly relevant. If, for example, Plaintiffs’ wage statement claim has merit, the wage statements of all non-exempt crew members, regardless of job classification or work location, will not accurately reflect the hours worked.

  • Hearing

    Aug 12, 2020

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

., alleging six causes of action based on various wage and hour Labor Code violations. On May 11, 2020, Defendant filed a motion to compel arbitration based on the Mutual Arbitration Agreement between Plaintiff and Defendant. On July 21, 2020, Plaintiff filed an opposition arguing that Defendant has not met its burden to establish the existence of an enforceable arbitration agreement and that the agreement is unconscionable.[1] On July 27, 2020, Defendant filed a reply.

  • Hearing

    Aug 12, 2020

MAJOR ONI VS SADIQ ESHAQ

ANALYSIS: Plaintiff Major Oni (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for violation of wage and hours laws against Defendant Sadiq Eshaq (“Defendant”) on September 30, 2019. Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents and Request for Sanctions (“the Motion”) on April 27, 2020. Defendant filed an opposition on August 3, 2020 and Plaintiff replied on August 5, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Aug 12, 2020

DENISE BERTONE VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

In the context of employment litigation, privity and collateral estoppel are generally found in cases involving classes or groups of employees, such as in wage and hour claims covering the same time period where the interests of all employees are intertwined such that the plaintiffs in the first action represented the interests of the plaintiffs in the second action. (Castillo v. Glenair, Inc. (2018) 23 Cal.App.5th 262, as modified on denial of reh'g (May 14, 2018), review denied (Aug. 8, 2018); Alvarez v.

  • Hearing

    Aug 11, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

ELDER OSVALDO GUTIERREZ VS LOCAL PIE, LLC, ET AL.

“Section 226(a) requires an employer to provide employees with an accurate itemized wage statement including nine specified items. One of the items to be included in the wage statement is ‘all applicable hourly rates in effect during the pay period.’ (§ 226(a)” (Raines v. Coastal Pacific Food Distributors, Inc. (2018) 23 Cal.App.5th 667, 673.) The complaint alleges Local Pie failed to provide accurate wage statements. (Compl. ¶112.) There is no requirement to plead such claim with specificity.

  • Hearing

    Aug 11, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

BLF INC. DBA LARRABURE FRAMING, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION,, ET AL. VS CARPENTERS-CONTRACTORS COOPERATION COMMITTEE INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION,, ET AL.

and reply and preparing and arguing the anti-SLAPP motion at $519.84 an hour (Mirzoyan Decl. ¶6; Stanley Decl. ¶24); $23,925.64 in attorney fees for 39.45 hours of work including researching and editing the anti- SLAPP motion and reply drafts at $606.48 an hour (Shanley Decl. ¶¶19, 24); and $4,180.80 in costs including court filings, e-filings, service, legal research, and costs associated with attending the anti-SLAPP hearing (Shanley Decl. ¶25, Exh.

  • Hearing

    Aug 11, 2020

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

  • Judge

    Paul A. Bacigalupo or Virginia Keeny

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

CESAR CRUZ VS CEDAR CONSTRUCTION & DEVELOPMENT, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

Discussion This is a wage and hour case. On November 12, 2019 Plaintiff Cesar Cruz filed this action against Defendant Cedar Construction & Development, Inc. (“Cedar”) alleging various labor code violations and a PAGA claim. The caption and the body of the complaint only named Cedar as a defendant. Further, the summons for the complaint only named Cedar as a defendant. Plaintiff did not file any doe amendments.

  • Hearing

    Aug 10, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

IRENE MORENO VS CIRRUS ASSET MANAGEMENT INC

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.

  • Hearing

    Aug 10, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

STATE OF CALIFORNIA; LOS ANGELES METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, ET AL. VS NEW FLYER OF AMERICA, INC.

For example, Defendant reported that every “new-hire, A&D Specialist at New Flyer’s Ontario facility received $11.75 per hour in ‘paid benefits,’” when “many, and perhaps all, A&D Specialists at New Flyer’s Ontario facility received less than $11.75 per hour in employer-paid fringe benefits.” (¶ 23.) A particular A&D Specialist identified in the reports as receiving $11.75 per hour in fringe benefits “received no more than $6.00 per hour in employer-paid fringe benefits.” (¶ 25.)

  • Hearing

    Aug 10, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

ERIKA NOLFF VS PERFORMANCE FOOD GROUP, INC.

Factual Background This is a wage and hour action. The First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) alleges as follows. Plaintiff was hired by Defendants Performance Food Group, Inc. (“Performance”) and Benjamin Yoo (“Yoo”) and in the course of her employment was regularly subjected to various labor code violation practices including meal and rest period violations, failure to pay overtime, and failure to reimburse reasonable expenses. (FAC ¶¶ 9-10.)

  • Hearing

    Aug 10, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

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.