SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - NORTHWEST DISTRICT
PEDRO FERNANDEZ Plaintiff, vs. THE LATIGO KID and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Defendants.
CASE NO: 20VECV00437
[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTION TO APPROVE PAGA SETTLEMENT
Dept. U
8:30 a.m.
October 20, 2020
I. BACKGROUND
On March 26, 2020, Pedro Fernandez (Plaintiff) filed a complaint against The Latigo Kid (Defendant) and Does 1 through 25, alleging claims for: (1) disability discrimination; (2) disability harassment; (3) failure to prevent discrimination and harassment; (4) failure to accommodate; (5) wage/hour – failure to pay wages; (6) wage/hour – failure to provide meal and rest breaks; (7) wage/hour – failure to provide overtime wages; (8) wage/hour – failure to provide accurate wage statements; (9) wage/hour – waiting time penalties; (10) retaliation; (11) constructive discharge in violation of public policy; (12) unlawful business practices; and (13) PAGA claim.
Plaintiff worked
Hearing Date
October 20, 2020
Type
Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - NORTHWEST DISTRICT
PEDRO FERNANDEZ Plaintiff, vs. THE LATIGO KID and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Defendants.
CASE NO: 20VECV00437
[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTION TO APPROVE PAGA SETTLEMENT
Dept. U
8:30 a.m.
October 20, 2020
I. BACKGROUND
On March 26, 2020, Pedro Fernandez (Plaintiff) filed a complaint against The Latigo Kid (Defendant) and Does 1 through 25, alleging claims for: (1) disability discrimination; (2) disability harassment; (3) failure to prevent discrimination and harassment; (4) failure to accommodate; (5) wage/hour – failure to pay wages; (6) wage/hour – failure to provide meal and rest breaks; (7) wage/hour – failure to provide overtime wages; (8) wage/hour – failure to provide accurate wage statements; (9) wage/hour – waiting time penalties; (10) retaliation; (11) constructive discharge in violation of public policy; (12) unlawful business practices; and (13) PAGA claim.
Plaintiff worked