Wage and Hour Violations in California

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.

Identify Civil actions regarding wage and hour violations filed in past 4 years. GRANT. SI 17. Name administrative claims regarding wage and hour violations filed in past 4 years. GRANT. SI 18. Name Civil actions regarding wage and hour violations filed in past 4 years. GRANT. (Unclear how this differs from SI 16) SI 19. Identify all employees who have filed administrative actions regarding wage and hour violations filed in past 4 years. DENY. Duplicative of 17. SI 20.

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.

The Garcia Action in San Diego seeks civil penalties for: (1) Meal and rest period violations; (2) Minimum wage violations; (3) Overtime violations; (4) Wage statement violations; (5) Failure to reimburse; (6) Failure to pay wages upon separation. Plaintiff states that this action differs from the Garcia Action in that she alleges that Defendant failed to provide seating to their employees and includes a request for penalties pursuant to Labor Code section 558 in the “fourth cause of action.”

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.

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.

Separate and apart from alter ego liability, Plaintiff has alleged that the individual defendants are personally liable for the wage and hour violations . California law expressly provides that individuals may be held personally liable for wage and hour violations .

The Knott lawsuit has wage and hour claims for failure to provide overtime, meal and rest breaks, failure to provide accurate wage statements, waiting time penalties, and PAGA. Bassett asserts a claim for failure to reimburse for necessary business expenses. Plaintiff’s claims are for wage and hour violations. They are brought against defendant. Plaintiff asserts failure to pay overtime, minimum wage violations, meal and rest period violations, failure to reimburse, wage statement violations, and PAGA.

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.

All fees associated with the wage and hour code violations are recoverable. Although there is no statutory fee-shifting provision applicable to meal and rest break violations, these claims are based on common factual and legal issues as the wage violation claims for which fees are recoverable. Therefore, no apportionment is necessary.

At my regular hourly rate of $18 per hour, I am owed one hour of premium pay at $18 per hour for each missed meal period, totaling $414 in meal period premiums (23 violations × $18/hour), and one hour of premium pay at $18 per hour for each missed rest break, totaling $414 in rest break premiums (23 violations × $18/hour). For my unpaid overtime of approximately 12 hours at the overtime rate of $27 per hour, I am owed $324 in unpaid overtime wages (12 hours × $27/hour). 13.

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.

Plaintiffs in the instant case are servers and cleaners at Defendants catering business who claim wage and hour violations related to their work. By contrast, the Intervenors worked as massage therapists at the spa, and their claims relate to how the spa was managed.

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.

Code § 437c(p)(2). 1st CA: Defendant offered evidence that it paid plaintiff more than the minimum wage for each regular time (non-overtime) hour--$35 or $40/hour, considerably more than the minimum wage.

Code § 437c(p)(2). 1st CA: Defendant offered evidence that it paid plaintiff more than the minimum wage for each regular time (non-overtime) hour--$35 or $40/hour, considerably more than the minimum wage.

Code § 437c(p)(2). 1st CA: Defendant offered evidence that it paid plaintiff more than the minimum wage for each regular time (non-overtime) hour--$35 or $40/hour, considerably more than the minimum wage.

Seventh Cause of Action Defendants argue that only Plaintiff’s first, second, and eighth causes of action provide potential legal bases for Plaintiff’s UCL count because the remaining wage/hour violations are not wage violations. Even is this is true, by Defendants’ concession, at least three violations exist from which Plaintiff’s UCL claim can stand (i.e., a demurrer must completely dispose of a cause of action).

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.)

instruction to multiply violations by wage rate.

The agreement describes covered claims to include wage and hour violations and other violations of the California Labor Code and any applicable Wage Order. (Pappas decl., Ex. A, ¶ 3A.) Moreover, only individual claims are subject to arbitration, not class or representative claims. ( Id . at p. 2, ¶ 4.) Accordingly, Plaintiffs claims for wage and hour violations under the Labor Code fall within the scope of disputes subject to arbitration.

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.

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.

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.

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.

F-49 Date: 12-14-21 Case #PC058809 ATTORNEY WITHDRAWAL MOVING Attorney: Julian King CLIENT: Plaintiff, Jonny Rivas RELIEF REQUESTED Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel of Record SUMMARY OF ACTION On September 26, 2018, Plaintiff Pedro Padilla filed a PAGA complaint for wage and hour violations.

A finding that Defendants didn’t commit substantive wage-and-hour violations resulting in derivative LC § 204 violations won’t affect anything in the FEHA matter, nor will a finding that Defendants didn’t intentionally delay Sanchez’s paycheck in retaliation affect a claim for LC § 204 violations derivative of substantive wage and-hour violations.

A finding that Defendants didn’t commit substantive wage-and-hour violations resulting in derivative LC § 204 violations won’t affect anything in the FEHA matter, nor will a finding that Defendants didn’t intentionally delay Sanchez’s paycheck in retaliation affect a claim for LC § 204 violations derivative of substantive wage and-hour violations.

In both actions, the plaintiffs have the same interest — enforcement of the wage and hour laws on behalf of non-exempt Denny’s employees in order to maximize monetary recovery and abate violations of wage and hour laws. (See Villacres v. ABM Industries Inc. (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 562 (rejecting plaintiff’s claim that privity could not be established because the State was the actual plaintiff in her PAGA claim).)

DISCUSSION Petitioner moves for leave to amend his claim for unpaid wages, add additional respondents and add new claims for: (1) misclassification; (2) wage theft; (3) unlawful wage deduction; (4) wage statement violations; (5) split shift violations; (6) failure to compensate for on-call and standby time; (7) forced resignation; (8) unlawful use of false resignation to avoid obligations; (9) failure to relocate; (10) wrongful eviction; (11) violations of Covid-19 emergency employment and housing

Additionally, the court held that an owner violates or causes to be violated if, when acting on behalf of an employer the owner has personal involvement in the enumerated violations in section 558.1; or, absent personal involvement, has sufficient participation in the activities of the employerincluding, for example, over those responsible for the alleged wage and hour violationssuch that the owner may be deemed to have contributed to, and thus have cause[d] such violations.

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.

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.

First, there is a controversy between the parties by virtue of the alleged FEHA and wage and hour violations. Second, Radnet provides evidence of a writing arbitration agreement that broadly covers “claims which arise for wages and other compensation” and “claims for discrimination.” Hendizadeh Decl. ¶ 2, Exh. A. Accordingly, the parties have an agreement to arbitrate.

The alleged statutory and civil penalties concern various wage and hour claims, including meal and rest period violations, minimum and overtime wage violations, wage-statement violations, failure to timely pay wages during employment and at termination, failure to maintain accurate wage statements, failure to reimburse business expenses, failure to disclose material terms at the time of hire, a UCL claim and a claim for PAGA penalties. 

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.)

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.

Meaning that the witnesses, testimony, policies, and facts for all four (4) are the same. & All four (4) Plaintiffs are making the same wage & hour, meal & rest break, and other claims as each other. (Defs. Mot. 6:115.)

However, these differences do not defeat the central premise of the motionthat both actions concern overlapping wage and hour violations and, as a result, involve overlapping issues and evidence. A stay is not unwarranted just because the two actions are not in perfect parity. The Court finds that the two actions substantively overlap such that proceeding simultaneously would risk conflict and harm judicial economy.

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.

Plaintiff's complaints about these wage and hour violations constituted bona fide claims relating to rights for which the Labor Commissioner has jurisdiction under California Labor Code sections 512 and 226.7. 37. Defendants terminated Plaintiff in retaliation for these wage-related complaints, warranting civil penalties under Labor Code section 98.6. 38. The trier of fact may assess a civil penalty of up to $10,000 for each retaliatory act, payable to the employee.

Central Transport has argued that Depadua's wage and hour claims are legally frivolous because they are barred by the res judicata effect of the class action settlement in Salvador Estrada v. Central Transport LLC, Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No. 20STCV05533. Depadua declined to dismiss his wage and hour claims during the statutory safe harbor period and instead filed opposition to Central Transport's summary adjudication motion seeking to dispose of those claims.

Although plaintiff’s allegations are broad and general, the allegations indicate that the wage and hour violations experienced by plaintiff were also experienced by class members and alleging a companywide policy by defendant. As such, it set forth a community of interest and are minimally adequate to survive the pleading stage. Similarly, the allegations concerning manageability are sufficient.

Although plaintiff’s allegations are broad and general, the allegations indicate that the wage and hour violations experienced by plaintiff were also experienced by class members and alleging a companywide policy by defendant. As such, it set forth a community of interest and are minimally adequate to survive the pleading stage. Similarly, the allegations concerning manageability are sufficient.

Although plaintiff’s allegations are broad and general, the allegations indicate that the wage and hour violations experienced by plaintiff were also experienced by class members and alleging a companywide policy by defendant. As such, it set forth a community of interest and are minimally adequate to survive the pleading stage. Similarly, the allegations concerning manageability are sufficient.

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.

Therefore, Apollo’s purported wage and hour violations can be imputed to DMG. Thus, plaintiff sufficiently alleges both entity defendants exerted control over him. Accordingly, plaintiff alleges the basis of liability for both defendants. B.

It seems to the court that an overlapping wage and hour action may have been pending and that this was done to resolve the conflicting race to settlement in another pending case. Missing from the motion is any explanation about the respective differences in liability between Defendant’s PARTNERS PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT and ORBIS RPM LLC or if this wage and hour practice is limited to PARTNERS’ client ORBIS and that no other potential class members are employed by PARTNERS.

It seems to the court that an overlapping wage and hour action may have been pending and that this was done to resolve the conflicting race to settlement in another pending case. Missing from the motion is any explanation about the respective differences in liability between Defendant’s PARTNERS PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT and ORBIS RPM LLC or if this wage and hour practice is limited to PARTNERS’ client ORBIS and that no other potential class members are employed by PARTNERS.

It seems to the court that an overlapping wage and hour action may have been pending and that this was done to resolve the conflicting race to settlement in another pending case. Missing from the motion is any explanation about the respective differences in liability between Defendant’s PARTNERS PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT and ORBIS RPM LLC or if this wage and hour practice is limited to PARTNERS’ client ORBIS and that no other potential class members are employed by PARTNERS.

It seems to the court that an overlapping wage and hour action may have been pending and that this was done to resolve the conflicting race to settlement in another pending case. Missing from the motion is any explanation about the respective differences in liability between Defendant’s PARTNERS PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT and ORBIS RPM LLC or if this wage and hour practice is limited to PARTNERS’ client ORBIS and that no other potential class members are employed by PARTNERS.

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.

Whether Plaintiff is entitled to civil penalties under PAGA depends on whether he can establish that Defendants committed wage-and-hour violations the very issue the same parties are already litigating in the Class Action. ( Id. at 4:1216.) Defendant argues that the instant action should be stayed because multiple courts should not be required to rule on the same alleged violations for the same employers and overlapping groups of employees.

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.

tort, including violations of public policy.

responsible for the each of the alleged wage and hour violations that they may be deemed to have contributed to, and thus caused each such violation with respect to Jesus Navarro; and (3) facts establishing that the violations alleged with respect to Jesus Navarro are representative of the violations suffered by the members of the putative class.

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.

wage rate . . . .

As to these and any other wage violations allegedly suffered before March 9, 2018, Plaintiff lacks standing to assert them because she did not suffer the alleged violations within the applicable statute of limitations. Defendant also issued a wage statement to Plaintiff on March 23, 2018 inclusive of a bonus payment and related overtime wages accounting for the bonus payment. (Id. at ¶¶ 5-6.)

Those allegations can be divided into three categories: (1) wage and hour allegations; (2) harassment allegations; and (3) health and safety allegations. Wage and Hour Allegations Defendants move the Court to strike the wage and hour allegations included in Plaintiff’s Complaint.

The violations alleged and the defenses described by Grix to the wage and hour claims appear to be the same for the plaintiff’s claim as for the claims regarding the other aggrieved employees. Yet the value of the two classes of claims are treated dramatically different. The plaintiff is to receive $12,500. Even if $10,000 of that sum were allocated to the unpled wrongful termination claim, he would recover $2,500 on his wage and hour claims, over 20% of the maximum value of $12,322.25.

While the standard of review on a demurrer is forgiving, the Court understands these (and other) Defendants’ frustration with wage-and-hour class action complaints containing mostly general allegations. Often, those allegations appear as though they could be plugged into almost any wage-and-hour lawsuit. And while defendants have the ability to conduct discovery to find out what evidence supports the various claims, that process can be expensive and time-consuming.

She also seeks to certify subclasses corresponding to the various cases of action alleged in the complaint: (1) failure to pay minimum wages, (2) failure to pay wages and overtime, (3) meal period liability, (4) rest break liability, (5) wage statement violations, (6) violations of Labor Code section 221 arising from a failure to provide meal periods, (7) failure to timely pay wages owed at termination or resignation, and (8) violations of Business & Professions Code section 17200 et seq.

Wage and Hour Protocol,” Appendix H states as follows: “ The Parties to this Agreement, including individual bargaining-unit employees and/or a group/class of bargaining-unit employees, agree to resolve on an individual basis solely and exclusively through the binding mediation and arbitration process set forth in this Protocol any and all claims alleging violations of any wage and hour laws and/or meal and rest period laws, including but not limited to claims alleging a failure to pay the minimum wage,

Plaintiff also alleges wage and hour violations and brings a related PAGA action. Defendants Action Sales & Metal Co., Inc. and Bruce Falk demur to the Second Amended Complaint and move to strike portions thereof.

Case Number: 23STCV28285 Hearing Date: September 19, 2024 Dept: 76 Plaintiffs allege wage and hour violations and disability discrimination, including wrongful termination. Defendant Rochelle Sterling, dba Beverly Hills Plaza Hotel & Spa filed a Cross-Complaint against Contract Services Group, Inc. for indemnity in providing payroll services which violated wage and hour laws.

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.

Plaintiffs representative wage and hour action is brought under the Private Attorney Generals Act (PAGA). (Cal. Labor Code §2698 et. seq.) Plaintiff alleges that she and other similarly situated non-exempt employees are aggrieved employees of Defendants. The employees suffered various violations of Californias wage and hour laws.

The damages sought are readily ascertainable from the evidence and are reasonable given the wage and hour violations documented. Plaintiff has provided supporting evidence through his declaration detailing his work schedule, pay structure, and the specific violations he experienced. The complaint and supporting evidence establish damages including unpaid overtime wages, meal and rest period premiums, minimum wage violations, waiting time penalties, and penalties for inaccurate wage statements. a.

F-49 Date: 9-7-23 Case #PC058809 ATTORNEY WITHDRAWAL MOVING Attorney: Julian King CLIENT: Plaintiff, Jonny Rivas RELIEF REQUESTED Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel of Record SUMMARY OF ACTION On September 26, 2018, Plaintiff Pedro Padilla filed a PAGA complaint for wage and hour violations.

Plaintiff submitted a notice of violations to the LWDA on November 28, 2023 and sued on February 1, 2024 after receiving no Notice of Investigation. ( Id. , ¶¶ 54-56.) On May 30, 2025, Plaintiff moved for summary adjudication of her second, fourth, fifth, and eighth causes of action, arguing that payroll records disclosed during litigation demonstrate, as a matter of law, that Defendants perpetrated the relevant wage-and-hour violations.

The court, however, finds that these allegations are insufficient to establish that Defendant (1) was personally involved in the alleged wage and hour violations (i.e., failing to provide Plaintiffs with accurate and timely wage statements), (2) had sufficient participation in Donda Academy, Inc.s activities such that he may be deemed to have contributed to those wage and hour violations, since he is alleged to have had oversight of the school policies and not its employment practices, or (3) had oversight of

Case Number: 19STCV14956 Hearing Date: December 28, 2020 Dept: 34 PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT JUDGMENT BACKGROUND : This action arises from various wage and hour violations Plaintiff endured during his employment from May 2016 to October 2018 with Defendant. (See SAC, ¶¶ 4-12.)

and hour dispute.

Further, Defendant contends that the individual defendants cannot be held liable for the wage and hour violations or the claims of retaliatory discharge, which claims can only be brought against the corporate employers. MEET AND CONFER Code Civ.

Labor Code sections 558 and 1197.1 provide an "other person" acting on behalf of an employer may be subject to, inter alia, a civil penalty for violations of the overtime and minimum wage laws. The understanding that an individual may be held liable for Labor Code violations under Labor Code sections 558 and 1197.1 is supported by Atempa v. Pedrazzani (Cal. Ct. App., Sept. 28, 2018, No.

This includes discovery on the merits of the alleged wage and hour violations, as to Ms. Ortmann herself as well as the other employees allegedly aggrieved by such violations. This stay does not extend to discovery between Plaintiff and Adecco. The parties are ordered to meet and confer concerning how and when to present the employment issue to the Court, and to set forth their ideas in their next joint case management statement.

The former employees cross-claimed for violations of California wage and hour laws and invoked California's Private Attorney Generals Act (PAGA). It is undisputed, however, that the former employees worked and lived outside California when employed by SpotOn, so the demurrer's focus is whether California wage and hour laws applied to them. They did not. A key case - cited by both sides - is Oman v. Delta Airlines, Inc. (2023) 9 Cal.5th 762.

Defendant argues, for example, that Plaintiff was provided with his time cards and wage statements in October of 2020. (Carpenter Decl. ¶ 4.) Defendant does not explain how provision of Plaintiffs timecards and wage statements were sufficient to put Plaintiffs counsel on notice of the wage and hour violations.

If the Court does the grant the motion, the Court intends to rule, at least in part, as follows: The alleged statutory and civil penalties concern various wage and hour claims, including meal and rest period violations, minimum and overtime wage violations, wage-statement violations, failure to timely pay wages during employment and at termination, failure to maintain accurate wage statements, failure to reimburse business expenses, failure to disclose material terms at the time of hire, a UCL claim and a claim

INTRODUCTION This is a PAGA and wage and hour case. Plaintiff Raul Michael Pedroza ("Pedroza" or “Plaintiff”) worked for defendant CSK Auto, Inc. ("CSK") as a non-exempt "Parts Specialist" from March 2012 until May 2012 at CSK's Ontario, California location. (Second Amended Complaint ("SAC") ¶ 22.)

On July 28, 2016, BARROSO filed a complaint for Whistle-Blower Retaliation (Labor Code section 1102.5), Wage and Hour Violations: Rest Periods (Labor Code sections 226.7, 512), Wage and Hour Violations: Meal Breaks (Labor Code sections 210, 226), Wage and Hour Violations: Waiting Time (Labor Code sections 202, 203), Workplace Disparate Treatment – Age/Disability/Perceived Disability (Government Code section 12940, et seq.), and Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy (FEHA, Labor Code section 1102.5

Finally, Defendant correctly argues that Plaintiff did not include in the 2014 letter claims relating to inclusion of total hours, gross wages and applicable hourly rates on the wage statements. The letter referenced only the alleged failure to state the employer's true name on the wage statements. The LWDA was not put on notice of the other alleged deficiencies with respect to the wage statements.

Purolator Air Filtration Products Co . (2000) 23 Cal.4th 163, 177-178, the wage and hour violations alleged are a sufficient bases to support a UCL claim. The demurrer to the fourth cause of action is OVERRULED.

Case Summary In this matter, the Plaintiff originally brought her wage-and-hour class action against automaker Defendant on August 10, 2021.

Plaintiff alleges that these joint employers engaged in various wage and hour violations and, based on those allegations, asserts the following seven causes of action: (1) Failure to Pay Wages; (2) Failure to Provide Meal Periods; (3) Failure to Permit Rest Breaks; (4) Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized Wage Statements; (5) Failure to Pay All Wages Due Upon Separation of Employment; (6) Violation of Business and Professions Code §§ 17200, et seq.; and (7) Enforcement of Labor Code § 2698, et seq.

All three actions raise essentially the same wage and hour Labor Code violations based on failure to pay minimum wages, overtime, provide meal and rest breaks, wage statement violations, failure to pay timely wages, failure to reimburse business expenses, and unfair competition claims.

Seven of Fonseca's nine claims against the Foxmans were brought under either the Fair Employment and Housing Act ("FEHA") for harassment or the Labor Code for violations of wage and hour laws. Defendants who prevail on FEHA and Labor Code wage and hour claims brought against them are not entitled to their costs, unless the Plaintiffs' claims are frivolous. It does not appear to the Court that Fonseca's FEHA and Labor Code claims were frivolous.

While the Court understands why a PAGA case and a class case might be filed at different times, they address essentially the same set of alleged violations of the wage-and-hour laws (albeit with different remedies). The cases are ordered consolidated under the lower docket number. The Court thanks counsel for the inventory of current wage-and-hour cases pending against AAA.

Minimum Wage (3rd COA) Regarding the third cause of action, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants failed to pay him the minimum wage by, among other things, requiring him to clock out for rest breaks. (FAC, ¶ 33.) This suffices to state a cause of action for minimum wage violations. 5.

and hour violations, including periods of time during which the statute of limitations was or may have been tolled or suspended.

BACKGROUND On June 6, 2023, Plaintiff filed her Complaint, alleging against Defendant Vision Media and Does 1 through 10, alleging wage and hour violations under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 action (PAGA), as codified in California Labor Code sections 2698, et seq. (Compl., at 2.)

tort, including violations of public policy.

The plaintiff in the Salas action asserts the following six causes of action on behalf of all truck drivers employed by Defendant from May 2022 to the present: (1) Meal Period Violations; (2) Rest Period Violations; (3) Failure to Reimburse Expenses; (4) Wage Statement Violations; (5) UCL; and (6) Waiting Time Penalties. On February 17, 2026, Defendant moved to stay the Salas action pending the Ramirez action.

Defendant seeks to strike punitive damages from Plaintiff’s first COA of meal and rest period violations and economic and general damages from Plaintiff’s section COA alleging violations of Business and Professions Code section 17200, et seq. II. DISCUSSION: Defendant makes two arguments: 1) punitive damages are not recoverable for wage and hour claims; and 2) restitution is the sole remedy for a Business and Professions Code section 17200 violation. A.

Therefore, the Court rules as follows: The alleged statutory and civil penalties concern various wage and hour claims, including meal and rest period violations, minimum and overtime wage violations, wage-statement violations, failure to timely pay wages during employment and at termination, failure to maintain accurate wage statements, failure to reimburse business expenses, failure to disclose material terms at the time of hire, a UCL claim and a claim for PAGA penalties. 

Case Number: 19LBCV00063 Hearing Date: February 19, 2021 Dept: S27 Plaintiff, Kavin Turner filed this action against Defendant, KBR, Inc. for wage and hour violations. After mediation, the parties agreed that it would be best to treat the case as a class action in order to avoid piecemeal litigation of the same issues by multiple persons. Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint which seeks redress for various wage and hour violations on a class action basis.

Case Number: 19LBCV00063 Hearing Date: January 28, 2021 Dept: S27 Plaintiff, Kavin Turner filed this action against Defendant, KBR, Inc. for wage and hour violations. After mediation, the parties agreed that it would be best to treat the case as a class action in order to avoid piecemeal litigation of the same issues by multiple persons. Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint which seeks redress for various wage and hour violations on a class action basis.