Source: https://trellis.law/ca/issue-type/wage-and-hour-violations-153/10
Timestamp: 2020-08-03 11:30:37
Document Index: 670689322

Matched Legal Cases: ['§226', '§226', '§510', '§ 510', '§202', '§ 437', '§ 204', '§ 17200', '§ 2699', '§ 436', '§ 431', '§ 2017']

Labor Code Sec. 226 requires an employer, semimonthly or at the time of each payment of wages, to furnish to his or her employee an accurate itemized wage statement. The statute of limitations on a §226 claim is one year. A one year statutory period applies to claims under Labor Code §226. See Falk v. Children’s Hospital Los Angeles (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 1453.
“The proper interpretation of a statute, and its application to undisputed facts, presents a question of law.” (Morgan v. United Retail Inc. (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 1136, 1142.) Labor Code Sec. 226(a) requires employers to provide “accurate itemized statements in writing showing... (9) all applicable hourly rates in effect during the pay period and the corresponding number of hours worked at each hourly rate by the employee.”
“An employee suffering injury as a result of a knowing and intentional failure by an employer to comply with subdivision (a) is entitled to recover the greater of” actual damages or a set amount for each violation, which is capped at $4,000, in addition to reasonable attorney fees and costs. (Labor Code Sec. 226(e).)
“An employee is deemed to suffer injury for purposes of this subdivision if the employer fails to provide accurate and complete information as required by any one or more of items (1) to (9), inclusive, of subdivision (a) and the employee cannot promptly and easily determine from the wage statement alone... any information required to be provided on the itemized wage statement pursuant to items (2) to (4), inclusive, (6), and (9) of subdivision (a).” (Labor Code Sec. 226(e)(2)(B).) The phrase “‘promptly and easily determine’ means a reasonable person would be able to readily ascertain the information without reference to other documents or information.” (Labor Code Sec. 226(e)(2)(C).)
To state a claim for unpaid wages/overtime, where plaintiff may be entitled to receive an award of a civil penalty based on the number of days defendant failed to pay his wages when due, plaintiff must prove all of the following:
The date on which plaintiff's employment ended;
That defendant failed to pay all wages due by date
Plaintiff's daily wage rate at the time his employment with defendant ended; and
That defendant willfully failed to pay these wages.
The term "willfully" means that the employer intentionally failed or refused to pay the wages."
Civil Jury Instruction Form 2704
“Section 203 provides that employees must be paid their wages upon discharge or quitting. If the wages are not paid in accordance with law, the employee's wages "shall continue as a penalty" for up to 30 days. (Maldonado, infra, 22 Cal.App.5th at 1324.) “However, a "good faith dispute" will preclude the imposition of these waiting time penalties.” (Id.)
Labor Code Sec. 1194(a) provides in relevant part: "Notwithstanding any agreement to work for a lesser wage, any employee receiving less than [...] the legal overtime compensation applicable to the employee is entitled to recover in a civil action the unpaid balance of the full amount of this minimum wage or overtime compensation, including interest thereon, reasonable attorney's fees, and costs of suit." Labor Code §510 sets out the payment required for overtime and double time.
That plaintiff performed work for defendant;
That plaintiff worked overtime hours;
That defendant knew or should have known that plaintiff had worked overtime hours;
That plaintiff was not paid/paid less than the overtime rate for some or all of the overtime hours worked; and
The amount of overtime pay owed.
Civil Jury Instruction Form 2702
“As a general rule, overtime pay is required for each hour in excess of eight hours in one day, or 40 hours in one week.” (Maldonado, infra, 22 Cal.App.5th at 1313 citing Sec. 510(a).)
In Maldonado, the court stated,
[S]ection 510, subdivision (a) provides that any work in excess of eight hours in one day shall be compensated at the overtime rate of time and a half. This does not apply, however, to an employee working pursuant to a properly adopted AWS. (§ 510, subd. (a)(1).)
"[T]he assertion of an exemption from the overtime laws is considered to be an affirmative defense, and therefore the employer bears the burden of proving the employee's exemption.” (Maldonado at 1327 citing Ramirez v. Yosemite Water Co. (1999) 20 Cal.4th 785, 794-795.)
Maldonado v. Epsilon Plastics, Inc. (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 1308, 1327.)
Exemptions from Wage and Overtime Provisions
The Fair Labor Standards Act, or “FLSA”, applies to employees in industries engaged in, or producing goods for, interstate commerce (29 U.S.C. §202(a)), unless the employer can claim an “exemption” from coverage. California Practice Guide, Employment Litigation, ¶11:20 (The Rutter Group 2016). Employers who claim that an exemption applies to their employees must show that the employees fit “plainly and unmistakenly” within the exemption’s terms. (Abshire v. County of Kern (9th Cir. 1990) 908 F.2d 483, 485-486; Ramirez v. Yosemite Water Co., Inc. (1999) 20 Cal.4th 785, 794; Lederman v. Frontier Fire Protection, Inc. (10th Cir. 2012) 685 F.3d 1151, 1157.)
“Motor carrier employees engaged in interstate commerce and otherwise subject to the maximum hour regulations of the Secretary of Transportation are exempt from overtime pay requirements of federal law.” See California Practice Guide, Employment Litigation, ¶11:325.1 (The Rutter Group 2016 referencing 29 U.S.C. Sec. 213(b)(1); 49 CFR Sec. 395.1, et seq.) “In other words, the minimum wage requirement is inapplicable to “any employee with respect to whom the Secretary of Transportation has power to establish qualifications and maximum hours of service pursuant to the provisions of section 31502 of Title 49.” See 29 U.S.C. Sec. 207(a)(1); 213(b)(1).
“Employees subject to the Secretary of Transportation’s jurisdiction under title 49 U.S. Code Sec. 315029(b) are exempt from the FLSA’s overtime compensation requirement pursuant to the motor carrier exemption, regardless of whether the Secretary of Transportation actually exercises jurisdiction.” (Bell v. H.F. Cox, Inc. (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 62, 77.) “The motor carrier exemption applies to individual employees only if:
their employer is a carrier subject to the jurisdiction of the Secretary of Transportation under title 49 United States Code section 31502(b), and
the individual employees are engaged in activities directly affecting the safety of operation of motor vehicles in interstate or foreign commerce.”
49 U.S.C. Sec. 31502(b) provides that the Secretary of Transportation may prescribe requirements for:
qualifications and maximum hours of service of employees of, and safety of operation and equipment of, a motor carrier; and
qualifications and maximum hours of service of employees of, and standards of equipment of, a motor private carrier, when needed to promote safety of operation.
“The 11090(3)(L) exemption does not apply, however, to the entire wage order, and instead applies only to the overtime provisions.” (Cicairos v. Summit Logistics, Inc. (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 949, 959.)
Cause of Actions in General — Violations
Minimum Wages — plaintiff may be entitled up to $9,027 for unpaid minimum wages under section 1197 plus the same amount as liquidated damages under section 1194.2.
Overtime Wages — Plaintiff is also owed a civil penalty under section 558 of $50 for the first violation and $100 for each subsequent violation per pay period for this 64-week period.
Split Shift Pay — Under Wage Order 4-2001, subdivision (4)(c), plaintiff is owed split shift pay calculated at one hour at the minimum wage for each workday violated.
Meal Periods — Under section 226.7, plaintiff is owed an hour’s minimum wage for each of the days worked where he did not receive a meal period.
Rest Periods — Under section 226.7, plaintiff is owed an hour’s minimum wage for each of the days worked where he did not receive a rest period.
Wage Statements — Under section 226, subdivision (e)(1), plaintiff is owed $50 for the first violation and $100 for each subsequent violation not to exceed $4,000. Example: Where a Plaintiff claims defendant violated Sec. 226 x number of times, plaintiff may be entitled to the statutory maximum.
Useful Rulings on Wage and Hour Violations
Madrigal vs 24 Hour Fitness USA, Inc.
1) Motion for Summary Judgment and/or Adjudication 2) Status Conference Defendant 24 Hour Fitness USA, Inc.’s motion for summary judgment or, alternatively, for summary adjudication of issues, is DENIED. Preliminary Issues First, Defendant’s 05/09/16 unopposed request for judicial notice is GRANTED. Second, the Court declines to rule on Defendant’s 07/20/16 objections. “[T]he court need rule only...
..ion for Summary Judgment.” There is no provision in CCP § 437c or California Rule of Court (CRC) 3.1350 for a reply or responsive separate statement. (Nazir v. United Airlines, Inc. (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 243, 252.) Moreover, this 51-page statement consists largely of arguments that are properly contained in a Reply. Summary Adjudication Although Defendant seeks summary adjudication as an alternat...
JOSE ORELLANA VS FROILAN C GRAJEDA
Background On January 14, 2015, plaintiff Jose Orellana filed a complaint against Froilan C. Grajeda dba KKV Transport and Does 1 through 20 for seven counts of wage and hour violations and related penalties under the Labor Code, unfair competition, and conversion. Plaintiff now requests a court judgment against defendant in the principal amount of $149,693.74 plus interest, costs, and fees for...
..tus. The complaint prays for judgment in excess of $300,000 across several categories of principal damages actually totaling $138,213.70 plus $100,000 in penalties under Labor Code section 2699, subdivision (f). Defendant appeared by filing an answer on May 20, 2015. Evidentiary Support In support of his claims, plaintiff provided a declaration detailing his work history and calculations of u...
Hopstein v. Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company, et al.
The above-entitled action comes on for hearing before the Honorable Thomas E. Kuhnle 21 on August 10, 2018, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 5. The Court now issues its tentative ruling as 22 follows: 23 I. INTRODUCTION 24 This is a putative class action arising out of various alleged Labor Code violations. The 25 Fourth Amended Complaint (“4AC”), filed on May 14, 2018, sets forth the following causes...
..(Labor Code § 204) 1 ; (6) Unfair 2 Competition (Business & Professions Code § 17200, et seq.); and (7) Violation of Private 3 Attorney General Act (PAGA) (Labor Code § 2699, et seq.). Defendants Hewlett Packard 4 Enterprise Company and Enterprise Services LLC (together, “Defendants”) demur to the fourth 5 cause of action in the 4AC. 6 II. DISCUSSION 7 The fourth cause of action is for failure...
JUN HE VS NEWSTARS TOUR INC ET AL
HE v. NEWSTARS TOUR, INC. DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT TENTATIVE RULING Sustain, without leave to amend, the demurrer to the first cause of action for failure to pay overtime compensation; sustain, without leave to amend, the demurrer to the fifth cause of action, but permit Plaintiff’s counsel 60 days’ leave to find another class representative on the wage statement claim who can allege t...
..from January 18, 2014 until January 23, 2015. [Complaint, ¶28.] Plaintiff alleges that Defendants engaged in the following violations of the laws of the State of California: (1) the failure to pay and overtime minimum wages to Plaintiff; (2) the failure to provide uninterrupted meal and rest periods to Plaintiff; (3) the failure to provide Plaintiff with timely and accurate wage and hour stateme...
Katherine Schwinghammer vs County of Santa Barbara, Office of the Public Defender
Nature of Proceedings: Demurrer to Second Amended Complaint TENTATIVE RULING: The demurrer of defendant County of Santa Barbara to plaintiff’s second amended complaint is sustained with leave to amend. Plaintiff shall have to and including January 28, 2019 to file an amended pleading. BACKGROUND: This is an action for alleged illegal employment practices. From approximately March 2016 to March...
..as $37.65 per hour, the same as an entry level attorney. Although plaintiff was required to submit time sheets, she was not allowed to record more than eight hours in a day, Monday through Friday. If plaintiff worked less than eight hours in a day, she was paid for the actual number of hours worked. If plaintiff worked more than eight hours in a day, or on weekends, she was not paid for the extra...
Matthew Maxfeldt vs. Rincon Consultants Inc [E-File]
The motions to strike, filed by defendants Rincon Consultants, Inc., Allegrig Group Holdings, Inc. and Aerotek, Inc., are denied. Defendants have 20 days to file their answers. Background and Discussion Plaintiff Matthew Maxfeldt filed a third amended complaint asserting a single cause of action under the Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA"), Labor Code section 2698 et seq. Among other things,...
..should be stricken. A court may strike out any "irrelevant, false, or improper matter" from a pleading. Code Civ. Proc., § 436, subd. (a). "Irrelevant" matters include allegations that are not pertinent to a claim or a demand for relief not supported by the allegations. Code Civ. Proc. § 431.10, subds. (b) & (c); see also PH II, Inc. v. Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1680, 1683 (a motion t...
Recent Rulings on Wage and Hour Violations
226-250 of 3210 results
Civil - Limited (9)
Civil - Unlimited (61)
Civil Case Management Conference (99)
Civil Court Trial (2)
Civil Jury Trial (3)
Demurrer / Motion To Strike (63)
Discovery Hearing (49)
Ex Parte (46)
Hearing On Petition (10)
Motion Hearing (Civil) (195)
Motion Hearing To Certify/Decertify Class Action (32)
Motion To Quash (Civil) (7)
Osc - Why Case Should Not Be Dismissed (2)
Opposition To Claim Of Exemption - Wage Garnishment (Civil) (2)
Slapp / Slappback Motion Hearing (2)
Settlement Conference (Civil) (2)
Status Conference (Civil) (12)
Summary Judgment / Summary Adjudication (Civil) (27)
Trial Readiness Conference (Civil) (17)
A. James Robertson Ii (2)
Allen Sumner (2)
Andrew Sweet (2)
Alan G. Perkins (168)
Alan Simpson (7)
Alice A. Lytle (1)
Allan D. Hardcastle (1)
Allen H. Sumner (1)
Andrew P Banks (1)
Angel Bermudez (2)
Barbara A. Lane (3)
Barbara Kronlund (11)
Barry Goode (11)
Barry Labarbera (7)
Ben Davidian (1)
Benny C. Osorio (7)
Bret Hillman (5)
Brian C. Walsh (136)
Brian R. Van Camp (14)
Carter Holly (2)
Chad Firetag (2)
Charles D. Wachob (1)
Charles S. Crandall (7)
Charles Treat (10)
Christopher K. Lui (9)
Colleen Sterne (29)
Craig G. Riemer (9)
Craig Griffin (1)
Curtis A. Kin (1)
D. Robert Shuman (40)
D. Tyler Tharpe (2)
Dalila Corral Lyons (4)
Dan Thomas Oki (10)
Daniel S. Murphy (40)
David A. Foster (1)
David C. Mathias (9)
David De Alba (23)
David Hoffer (4)
David M. Chapman (7)
David R Chaffee (13)
David S. Cunningham (13)
David Sotelo (36)
David W. Abbott (7)
Deborah C Servino (2)
Deborah C. Servino (1)
Debre Katz Weintraub (3)
Dennis J. Landin (13)
Donald Black (11)
Donna Geck (35)
Dylan Sullivan (3)
E. Bradley Nelson (1)
Ernest H. Goldsmith (6)
Eddie C Sturgeon (16)
Edward B. Moreton (1)
Edward Weil (21)
Elaine Lu (17)
Elaine Lu Or Georgina Torres Rizk (1)
Elaine Lu Or Yolanda Orozco (2)
Elaine W. Mandel (1)
Elizabeth R. Feffer (8)
Emily E. Vasquez (5)
Emily Vasquez (1)
Ernest W. Sawtelle (4)
Ernst Halperin (1)
Frederick Bysshe (1)
Frederick C. Shaller (6)
Frederick Horn (6)
Gerald J. Buchwald (1)
Gail Ruderman Feuer (38)
George J. Abdallah (2)
George V. Spanos (1)
Georgina Torres Rizk (1)
Georgina Torres Rizk Or Jon R. Takasugi (2)
Gerrit W. Wood (11)
Ginger E. Garrett (23)
Glade F. Roper (1)
Glenda Sanders (46)
Glenn R. Salter (3)
Gloria White-Brown (19)
Gregory Keosian (20)
Gregory Lewis (5)
Gregory W Pollack (6)
Harold E. Kahn (2)
Holly J. Fujie (20)
Holly J. Fujie Or Michael M. Johnson (1)
Hon. Patricia M. Lucas (1)
Howard L. Halm (22)
Irma Asberry (4)
Irma P. Asberry (2)
James T. Chou (1)
Jaime R. Romã¡N (6)
Jaime R. Román (6)
James Di Cesare (12)
James E. Blancarte (2)
James E. Blancarte Or Serena R. Murillo (1)
James F. Rigali (7)
James Herman (4)
James L. Crandall (5)
James M. Mize (11)
James T. Latting (2)
Jeffrey B. Barton (1)
Jeffrey G. Bennett (1)
Jeffrey Y. Hamilton (6)
Jill Fannin (2)
Joan M. Lewis (1)
Joel M. Pressman (5)
Joel R. Wohlfeil (14)
John C. Gastelum (1)
John P. Doyle (19)
John S. Meyer (19)
Jon R. Takasugi (2)
Judith Craddick (3)
Judy Holzer Hersher (2)
Katherine Bacal (62)
Kathy Ciuffini (2)
Kenneth J Medel (15)
Kenneth R. Freeman (98)
Kent Kellegrew (8)
Kevin A. Enright (1)
Kevin Denoce (14)
Kim Dunning (2)
Kimberly Gaab (16)
Kristi Culver Kapetan (3)
Laurie M. Earl (5)
Laura A. Seigle (1)
Laurie M. Earl (4)
Lawrence G. Brown (3)
Layne H. Melzer (3)
Linda D. Hurst (9)
Linda Marks (3)
Lori Ann Fournier (3)
Michael Mattice (4)
Marc Marmaro (8)
Mark Borrell (3)
Mark C. Kim (4)
Mark H. Pierce (1)
Mark Snauffer (7)
Martha K. Gooding (4)
Mary E. Arand (5)
Maurice A. Leiter Or Salvatore Sirna (2)
Melinda Reed (6)
Michael G. Virga (6)
Michael J. Raphael (48)
Michael M. Johnson (22)
Michael Mulvihill (2)
Michael P Candela (1)
Michael P. Linfield (59)
Michael T. Garcia (5)
Michael W. Sweet (3)
Michelle Williams Court (4)
Monica Bachner (7)
Norbert Ehrenfreund (4)
Peter J. Busch (1)
Pamela L. Smith-Steward (1)
Patricia D. Nieto (27)
Patricia Lucas (5)
Patrick M (1)
Paul A. Bacigalupo Or Virginia Keeny (2)
Pauline Maxwell (21)
Peter A. Hernandez (8)
Peter Wilson (27)
Presiding (4)
Richard A. Kramer (1)
Richard Sueyoshi (2)
Rafael A. Ongkeko (25)
Ralph C. Hofer (15)
Randa Trapp (8)
Randall J. Sherman (15)
Randall S. Stamen (1)
Randolph A. Rogers (1)
Randolph M. Hammock (113)
Raoul M. Thorbourne (21)
Rebecca Susan Riley (22)
René Auguste Chouteau (1)
Richard E. L. Strauss (16)
Richard J. Burdge (19)
Richard K. Park (2)
Richard S. Whitney (3)
Robert A. Dukes (4)
Robert B. Broadbelt (2)
Robert C. Hight (12)
Robert L. Hess Or Patricia D. Nieto (1)
Robert S. Draper (39)
Robert S. Draper Or Gail Ruderman Feuer (6)
Roger Lund (2)
Roger Ross (8)
Roland L. Candee (3)
Ronald F. Frazier (9)
Ronald W. Tochterman (4)
Rosemary Mcguire (15)
Rosie Mcguire (6)
Rudolph R. Loncke (5)
Russell L. Hom (1)
Shelleyanne W. L. Chang (1)
Stephen P. Freccero (1)
Susan Greenberg (2)
Salvatore Sirna Or Gary Y. Tanaka (2)
Samantha P. Jessner (4)
Stephanie M. Bowick (2)
Stephen H. Baker (3)
Stephen P. Pfahler (1)
Steve K. Austin (3)
Stuart M. Rice (2)
Sunil R. Kulkarni (2)
Sunshine S. Sykes (1)
Talmadge R. Jones (1)
Tana L. Coates (25)
Teresa A. Beaudet (26)
Thadd A. Blizzard (24)
Theodore R. Howard (23)
Thierry Patrick Colaw (17)
Thomas Anderle (94)
Thomas E. Kuhnle (46)
Thomas M. Cecil (2)
Timothy M. Casserly (26)
Timothy Staffel (3)
Timothy Taylor (319)
Timothy W. Salter (1)
W. Stephen Scott (2)
Walter Schwarm (4)
Warren C. Stracener (1)
Wendy Chang (1)
William D Claster (139)
William D. Stewart (19)
William F. Highberger (1)
Yolanda Orozco (22)
Yolanda Orozco Or Georgina Torres Rizk (5)
Los Angeles County, CA (999)
San Diego County, CA (571)
Sacramento County, CA (481)
Orange County, CA (341)
Santa Clara County, CA (203)
Santa Barbara County, CA (199)
Fresno County, CA (82)
San Luis Obispo County, CA (75)
Ventura County, CA (72)
Contra Costa County, CA (51)
Riverside County, CA (32)
San Joaquin County, CA (27)
Tulare County, CA (25)
San Francisco County, CA (14)
Solano County, CA (6)
Shasta County, CA (3)
Kings County, CA (2)
Merced County, CA (2)
Napa County, CA (2)
Santa Cruz County, CA (2)
Butte County, CA (1)
Stanislaus County, CA (1)
ENTSMINGER V. LOANDEPOT.COM, LLC
Moreover, as pointed out by Defendant in Reply, Plaintiff’s remaining causes of action are solely for wage-and-hour claims related to a small number of hours of work that Plaintiff allegedly performed while on leave. On these facts, the Court concludes that bifurcation is neither necessary nor appropriate; there is no reason to believe bifurcation will result in any genuine efficiencies, or that proceeding with trial absent bifurcation will confuse the trier of fact.
Judge Martha K. GOODING
SOTO VS L I METAL SYSTEMS [E-FILE]
This is a putative class action alleging wage and hour violations by a company that "installs rain gutters and overhang systems in residential homes and buildings throughout Southern California." ROA 1, paragraph 4. The eight count complaint was filed in March of 2017, and was followed by the first amended complaint in May of 2017. ROA 10. Defendant answered in July of that year. ROA 12. At the due-course CMC in August of 2017, the court set the case for hearing on class certification in March of 2018.
FIESER VS BITCHIN INC [E-FILE]
This was a putative class action involving allegations of wage and hour violations. The complaint was filed in March of 2018, and was followed within days by the first amended complaint. ROA 8. Defendants answered seasonably, ROA 11-12, but later the parties stipulated to the filing of the second amended complaint (which added PAGA allegations). ROA 16-17. Defendants* answered the second amended complaint in July of 2018. ROA 24-25.
LEE WEBSTER V. PLATINUM PARKING MANAGEMENT, LLC, ET AL.
This is a class and Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) action on behalf of employees of defendants Platinum Parking Management, LLC, Platinum Parking Mgmt LLC, and/or Anthony Carchedi, 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.
FOAAD HANNA V. EQUINIX LLC, ET AL.
This is a putative wage and hour class and Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) action by employees of defendant Equinix LLC. The parties have reached a settlement, which the Court preliminarily approved in an order filed on September 24, 2019. The factual and procedural background of the action and the Court’s analysis of the settlement and settlement class are set forth in that order.
This is a wage and hour class and Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) action by employees of defendant Wells Fargo Bank, National Association. The parties have reached a settlement, which the Court preliminarily approved in an order filed on September 24, 2019. The factual and procedural background of the action and the Court’s analysis of the settlement and settlement class are set forth in that order.
IAN MCCRAY V. MARRIOTT HOTEL SERVICES, INC., ET AL.
This is a putative wage and hour class action arising from defendants Marriott Hotel Services, Inc. and SJMEC, Inc.’s alleged violations of the City of San Jose Minimum Wage Ordinance. Before the Court is defendants’ motion for summary judgment (or, alternatively, summary adjudication) on the ground that plaintiff’s collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”) contains a valid waiver of the Ordinance.
ALIVIA STRICKLIN V. FIRST ALARM SECURITY & PATROL, INC., ET AL.
Attorney Fees, Costs, and Incentive Award Plaintiffs seek a fee award of $2,416,666.67, or one-third of the gross settlement, which is not an uncommon contingency fee allocation in a wage and hour class action. This award is facially reasonable under the “common fund” doctrine, which allows a party recovering a fund for the benefit of others to recover attorney fees from the fund itself.
MELISSA D SANCHEZ VS SUK H TSANG ET AL
2011 and has been practicing law for more than eight years primarily in labor and employment law (Id. at ¶ 5); (5) his hourly rate is typically $350.00 per hour and that is the market rate for attorneys of his experience in the same geographic area (Id.); (6) he has litigated well over 300 wage-and-hour claims and has extensive experience representing employers and employees at trial and summary judgment motion proceedings (Id.); (7) when he substituted in this case for Defendants, Defendant Suk H.
Wrongful Term
MARINA TEVAN VS EXAMONE WORLD WIDE, INC.,, ET AL.
By misclassifying Plaintiff as an independent contractor and treating her accordingly, Defendants violated numerous wage and hour laws. LEGAL STANDARD CCP section 2031.320 sets forth the conditions to make a motion to compel compliance with an inspection demand.
TAHERI VS. CANZONE
"Employer" under the Wage Order (15-2001) is defined as: "A person who directly or indirectly, ...employs or exercises control over the wages, hours or working conditions of any person." Plaintiffs allege: ...Jamal Habib, the Habib Trust and defendants Canzone and DOES 1-10, inclusive, exercised control of the plaintiffs' wages, hours and working conditions so as to be plaintiffs' employers under the applicable California Industrial Wage Order.
DYLAN R. CADENA VS ALLIANCE INSPECTION MANAGEMENT, LLC, ET AL.
and hour violations for non-exempt employees, facts supporting the contention this action is unmanageable, and defendant’s relationship to the other defendants.
Judge Michelle Williams Court
PAUL VOGT VS FRANK ALFARO ET AL.
Sanctions are granted against Plaintiff in the sum of $860.00 (5 hours x $160.00/hour plus a 60.00 filing fee). The motion for issue sanctions is denied. The trial setting conference scheduled for February 27, 2020 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 11B will remain. Ross 2/26/2020
SANDY DIAZ VS PRIME HEALTHCARE SERVICES-SAN DIMAS, LLC, ET AL.
Aggrieved Employees, other than Plaintiff, will not be deemed to have released any individual wage and hour claims, or any claims other than PAGA claims, by virtue of this settlement. (¶23.)
LOPEZ VS PNS STORES INC
This is a wage and hour/discrimination case arising from plaintiff's employment at the "Big Lots" store in Oceanside between 2003 and June of 2018. The operative first amended complaint was filed in August of 2019. ROA 7. Defendants have answered. ROA 11. Presently, two Ohio lawyers, Harris and Hoffman, seek leave to appear pro hac vice. ROA 29-40. They have local counsel in California. The motions are unopposed.
The only claims remaining in the case are Plaintiff’s CFRA and wage and hour claims. The discovery sought is no longer relevant to the remaining 6th, 7th, and 8th causes of action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2017.010.) Defendant is ordered to give notice, unless notice is waived by all parties at the hearing.
ADRIENNE ROCK, AN INDIVIDUAL VS SAKS FIFTH AVENUE, INC., A CORPORATION, ET AL.
Plaintiff also alleges wage and hour violations. Plaintiff moves for relief from failure to timely post jury fees and the resulting waiver of jury trial. ANALYSIS Motion For Relief From Failure To Post Jury Fees (Waiver of Jury Trial) Plaintiff moves for relief from failure to timely post jury fees and the resulting waiver of jury trial. Plaintiff argues that the failure to timely pay jury fees was inadvertent, and permitting Plaintiff to proceed to a jury trial would not prejudice Defendant.
DELIA PERDUE ET AL VS MOBILE MODULAR DEVELOPMENT INC ET AL
hour statements under Labor Code sections 226, 226.3; (12) failure to maintain payroll records under Labor Code sections 226, 1174, 1174.5; (13) failure to pay minimum compensation under Labor Code section 1194; (14) failure to pay overtime compensation under Labor Code sections 510, 1194; (15) unpaid wages of deceased spouse under Probate Code section 13600; (16) unfair competition under Business and Professions Code section 17200.
JAVIER FUENTES GONZALEZ VS DREAM DWELL, INC, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.
In this wage and hour action, Plaintiff requests entry of default judgment against Defendant in the amount of: Damages: $230,440 (demand of complaint) Costs: $738.40 Interest: $27,147 Attorney Fees: $12,250 Total: $270,575.40 (matches JUD-100) The court denies the request for the following reasons, without prejudice to a renewed request. Compliance with CRC 3.1800 Request for entry of default judgment is properly made on form CIV-100. 1.
THEREASA CARROZZELLA VS. BASALITE CONCRETE PRODUCTS, LLC
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.
Judge Helena R. Gweon
MONSTER ENERGY COMPANY VS COHEN
However, unlike, for example, employment laws governing the wage and hour practices within Georgia, which the State of Georgia would have a strong interest in when it comes to how workers are treated within its jurisdiction, trade secret protections are much less localized in nature. It is necessary at this stage to note that the issue presently before this Court is one of choosing the appropriate forum – not choosing the applicable substantive law.
Judge Timothy M. Casserly
MIGUEL ANGEL CUEVA VS. PACIFIC AMERICAN FISH CO.
“During Plaintiff’s employment with Defendant, Plaintiff was not provided rest periods for work periods of four (4) hours or more, and was not provided with meal periods for work days in excess of five (5) and/or ten (10) hours, and was not compensated a one (1) hour wage in lieu of said rest and/or meal periods.” (SAC ¶20.) “Plaintiff was constantly harassed by his supervisors and other employees.
BRETT SMITH V. KENNEDY MANAGEMENT SERVICES
Brett Smith, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated (“Plaintiff”), filed this wage and hour action against Kennedy Management Services, Inc. (“Defendant”) on December 7, 2017. Plaintiff and Defendant have reached a class-action settlement, in which Defendant has agreed to a non-reversionary gross settlement amount of $300,000, memorialized in a Stipulation of Settlement. (Lidman Decl., Exh. 1 (the “Settlement Agreement”).)
« first previous 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ... 129 next last »