Wage and Hour Violations

Useful Rulings on Wage and Hour Violations

Rulings on Wage and Hour Violations

1-25 of 3228 results

CALIXTO OCHOA VS. FLETCHER

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.

  • Hearing

    Aug 23, 2019

GUZMAN, MARIO VS. CALOY INC

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.

  • Hearing

    Jan 30, 2018

GARCIA V. PACIFIC BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY

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.

  • Hearing

    Feb 19, 2019

JOSE ORELLANA VS FROILAN C GRAJEDA

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.

  • Hearing

    Nov 04, 2016

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

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.

  • Hearing

    Aug 22, 2017

AMALIA HERNANDEZ VS MARIANNA ENTERPRISES INC

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.

  • Hearing

    Apr 20, 2017

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

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.

  • Hearing

    Feb 06, 2019

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

LU V. SURGICAL CARE AFFILIATES, LLC

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.

  • Hearing

    Mar 01, 2019

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

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.

  • Hearing

    Apr 19, 2018

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

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

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.

  • Hearing

    Apr 19, 2018

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

DANICA N KEICH VS. US HEALTHWORKS INC [E-FILE]

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.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 17, 2018

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

DANICA N KEICH VS. US HEALTHWORKS INC [E-FILE]

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.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 17, 2018

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

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

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.

  • Hearing

    May 21, 2018

HEEMIN YANG VS PHAROS & SHRINE INC ET AL

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.

  • Hearing

    May 21, 2018

SHAWN LAFOUNTAIN V. MERIDIAN SENIOR LIVING LLC

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.)

  • Hearing

    Feb 04, 2019

CRUZ AMEZCUA VS VITA-PAKT CITRUS PRODUCTS CO

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.

  • Hearing

    Nov 03, 2016

PARK VS. AMERICAN ADDICTION CENTERS, INC.

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.

  • Hearing

    Oct 04, 2019

LEVIKOW VS. HERRING NETWORKS INC

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.

  • Hearing

    Oct 25, 2018

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

BARROS VS. TANGONAN

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.

  • Hearing

    Oct 04, 2018

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

BARROS VS. TANGONAN

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.

  • Hearing

    Oct 04, 2018

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

STARDANCER LLC VS FELIPE CASTANEDA

tort, including violations of public policy.

  • Hearing

    Sep 06, 2011

LIU VS SPLENDOR MANAGEMENT COR

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.

  • Hearing

    Apr 06, 2017

CECILIA MILLER VS HELZBERG'S DIAMOND SHOPS INC ET AL

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.

  • Hearing

    Feb 24, 2017

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

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

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.

  • Hearing

    May 11, 2018

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

JAIME REYES VS. JOSE PRADO

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.

  • Hearing

    Mar 01, 2016

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

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.