Did Lion Farms Violate Migrant Farmworker Protections? A 2025 Landmark Federal Enforcement Case

In 2025, the federal enforcement case against Lion Farms LLC concluded with a consent judgment and permanent injunction. The employer and its owners were ordered to pay $128,899.50 in back wages and civil money penalties for alleged violations affecting migrant and seasonal agricultural workers.

Case: Chavez-DeRemer v. Lion Farms, LLC

Court: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California

Case No.: 1:25-cv-00312-KES-EPG (also listed as 1:2025cv00312)

More About the Plaintiff: Chavez-DeRemer v. Lion Farms, LLC

The U.S. Secretary of Labor, Lori Chavez-DeRemer, took action through the Department of Labor to address claims that MSPA and its rules were violated. The U.S. Department of Labor investigated a crash involving workers on February 23, 2024, which prompted the action.

Defendants in the Case: Chavez-DeRemer v. Lion Farms, LLC

The defendants are Lion Farms LLC and its owners and operators: Bruce Lion, Alfred Lion, and Daniel Lion.

A Brief Case History: Chavez-DeRemer v. Lion Farms, LLC

After a car accident on February 23, 2024, that killed seven employees and seriously hurt another while they were on their way to work, the U.S. Department of Labor's Wage and Hour Division looked into Lion Farms. The Department said the employer did not follow the federal government's rules for transporting migrant and seasonal agricultural workers.

The Secretary of Labor filed the lawsuit on March 14, 2025, in the Eastern District of California. The case was resolved by a Consent Judgment and Permanent Injunction entered on August 26, 2025.

What Did the Court Need to Take Into Account?

In this enforcement action, the court had one main question to consider. Did Lion Farms and its owners comply with MSPA regulations? (Particularly the regulations pertaining to safe transportation, accurate wage-statement disclosures, and lawful wage payments).

What Were the Case's Alleged Violations?

The Department of Labor alleged the following MSPA violations:

• Unsafe or illegal transportation practices, including use of vehicles and drivers that did not meet MSPA licensing and insurance requirements.

• Charging workers a transportation fee that investigators deemed unlawful due to the alleged transportation violations.

• Failure to provide required wage statement information, such as workers’ permanent addresses and the employer’s identification number.

Unpaid wages: The agency calculated $39,013 in back wages owed to 12 employees.

The consent judgment also references alleged MSPA violations from October 16, 2022 through February 24, 2024.

What Was the Outcome of the Case?

The August 26, 2025 consent judgment:

1. Entered judgment totaling $128,899.50, consisting of: $39,013.00 in back wages, and $89,886.50 in civil money penalties.

2. Imposed a permanent injunction requiring future compliance and prohibiting further MSPA violations.

Why This 2025 Wage-and-Hour Enforcement Case Was Historic

Regarded as a landmark case for 2025, this wage-and-hour enforcement combined back pay/wage relief, significant civil money penalties, and a permanent injunction in a matter involving alleged safety and pay violations affecting vulnerable agricultural workers, despite the fact that MSPA is a farmworker protection statute rather than the FLSA.

FAQ: Chavez-DeRemer v. Lion Farms, LLC

Q: What is MSPA?

A: MSPA is a federal law setting protections for migrant/seasonal agricultural workers. Protections include requirements regarding disclosures, wage statements, and certain working-condition safeguards (including transportation safety standards).

Q: What monetary relief did the court order in the Chavez-DeRemer v. Lion Farms, LLC case?

A: The consent judgment totaled $128,899.50 ($39,013.00 in back wages and $89,886.50 in civil money penalties).

Q: What is a consent judgment?

A: A consent judgment is a court order entered based on the parties’ agreement. It is binding and enforceable even though it resolves the case without a trial.

Q: Did the court’s order include future compliance requirements?

A: Yes. The order included a permanent injunction designed to prevent future violations and require compliance going forward.

If you believe you were denied earned wages, charged improper work-related fees, or not provided required wage information, the employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP can help you understand your options. Contact the firm’s offices in Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Riverside, or Chicago to discuss potential recovery of unpaid wages and legal accountability.

Did Innovative Wall Systems Shortchange Workers on Overtime and Travel Time?

In recent news, the wage and hour enforcement case alleging that Innovative Wall Systems, Inc. engaged in multiple labor law violations came to an end with the Court ruling in favor of the plaintiff.

Case: Lori Chavez-Deremer v. Innovative Wall Systems

Court: U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California

Case No.: 3:25-cv-02240-GPC-DDL (also listed as 3:2025cv02240)

Filed: August 28, 2025

Disposition: Consent Judgment signed September 11, 2025 and filed September 12, 2025

Presiding Judge: Gonzalo P. Curiel

Get to Know the Plaintiff in the Case:

The plaintiff is Lori Chavez-DeRemer, in her official capacity as the U.S. Secretary of Labor, bringing the action under federal enforcement authority of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). minimum wage, overtime, and recordkeeping violations affecting 580 workers. The case serves as a solid reminder to employers that, even when workers are paid on a per-unit or production basis, accurate time records must be maintained and overtime premiums must be paid when employees exceed 40 hours in a workweek.

Who Was the Defendant in the Case?

The defendant, Innovative Wall Systems, Inc., is a California corporation doing business as Alta Drywall, and Jason Shane Bellamy (identified in public summaries as the company’s president and CEO).

A Brief History of the Case: Lori Chavez-Deremer v. Innovative Wall Systems

The U.S. Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division conducted an investigation into Innovative Wall Systems’ timekeeping and pay practices.

Aug. 28, 2025: The Department of Labor filed an enforcement lawsuit against Innovative Wall Systems in the Southern District of California.

Aug. 28, 2025: Notice of settlement was filed (same day complaint was filed).

Sept. 11, 2025: Consent of judgment was signed.

Sept. 12, 2025: Consent of judgment was filed.

The consent judgment imposed injunctive relief (prohibiting future FLSA violations), back wages, liquidated damages, and a civil money penalty.

What Were the Labor Law Violation Allegations?

Federal investigators alleged that Innovative Wall Systems failed to accurately record compensable time, including pre- and post-shift work, travel time (to and from job sites), and Saturday work. The complaint also alleged that the company failed to pay accurate overtime wages and that its problematic timekeeping practices resulted in wage-and-hour violations.

The Outcome of the Wage and Hour Action: Court-Ordered Relief

The consent judgment required the company to pay $790,000 in back wages to affected employees, liquidated damages, and a civil penalty.

Becoming a Landmark Wage-and-Hour Case of 2025

What makes this particular wage and hour case a landmark case of 2025? There are several reasons. First, it was a big case, in terms of the number of affected workers and the reach of the ripples it made in the industry. The alleged violations affected 580 identified workers. Second, the case also serves as an obvious example of how quickly federal enforcement can yield binding injunctive and monetary relief, with the exceedingly rapid progression from filing to settlement. Third, the case’s allegations centered on travel time as “compensable time,” a common sore spot in labor law in the construction industry. And fourth, the fact that a civil money penalty was included underscores that the government did not view this as a minor or technical offense, but a serious one that needed a heavy-handed consequence.

FAQ: Chavez-Deremer v. Innovative Wall Systems

Q: What is “travel time” and when can it be compensable?

A: Certain travel time can be compensable under wage-and-hour law, including (in many settings) travel that occurs during the workday, such as travel between jobsites (depending on the facts and the applicable rules).

Q: What are my rights regarding overtime pay in California?

A: In California, most employees are entitled to receive overtime pay for hours worked over 8 in a day or 40 in a week. Specific exemptions may apply, so it’s essential to consult with an attorney to understand your rights.

Q: How can I determine if I am misclassified as an exempt employee?

A: Misclassification can occur when employers incorrectly classify employees as exempt from overtime. If you believe you should be eligible for overtime pay, consider speaking with an employment attorney who can review your job duties and classification.

Q: What does it mean when a case ends in a “consent judgment”?

A: A consent judgment is basically a settlement that becomes a court order. The parties agree to specific terms, the judge signs off, and those terms are enforceable—so failing to follow them can lead to serious consequences.

Q: Does a consent judgment mean the employer admitted wrongdoing?

A: Not always. Many consent judgments resolve a dispute without a full trial or a formal admission of fault. But the bottom line is the same: once the court enters it, the order is binding.

If you believe you were denied overtime, shorted on travel time or other compensable hours, or paid in a way that did not meet minimum wage and overtime requirements, the wage-and-hour attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP can help evaluate your potential claims. Contact the firm’s offices in Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Riverside, or Chicago to discuss your options for pursuing unpaid wages and accountability under the law.

Did a Federal Court Block the DOL’s 2025 Overtime Salary Threshold Increase Nationwide?

For employers and salaried workers alike, the Department of Labor’s 2024 overtime rule promised a major shift in who would qualify for overtime pay starting January 1, 2025. But a federal court in Texas ultimately set aside and vacated the rule nationwide, preventing the planned 2025 salary-threshold increase from taking effect and resetting compliance expectations across the country. Below is a case-study summary of State of Texas v. U.S. Department of Labor, the decision frequently described as a “national vacatur” because it did more than block enforcement for a single plaintiff; it invalidated the rule nationwide.

Case: State of Texas v. U.S. Department of Labor

Court: United States District Court, Eastern District of Texas (Sherman Division)

Case No.: Civil No. 4:24-cv-499-SDJ (lead case), consolidated with 4:24-cv-468-SDJ

Decision Date: November 15, 2024

Judge: District Judge Sean D. Jordan

Outcome: The “2024 Rule” was set aside and vacated

The Plaintiff in the Case: The State of Texas

The lead plaintiff was the State of Texas, joined in the consolidated litigation by a coalition of employer and trade-organization plaintiffs challenging the Department of Labor’s overtime rule as exceeding the agency’s statutory authority.

Get to Know the Defendant in the Case: U.S. Department of Labor

The defendant was the U.S. Department of Labor and agency officials responsible for implementing and enforcing the overtime rule (including the Department's leadership and the Wage and Hour Division).

A Brief Case History: State of Texas v. U.S. DOL

In April 2024, the U.S. Department of Labor finalized a rule that revised the salary thresholds for “white-collar” FLSA exemptions for executive, administrative, and professional employees. Under the new rule, a two-step salary threshold increase was implemented alongside an automatic updating mechanism:

On July 1, 2024, salary thresholds increased from $684/week ($35,568/year) to $844/week ($43,888/year)

On January 1, 2025, salary thresholds were scheduled to increase to $1,128/week ($58,656/year)

In addition, highly compensated employees (HCE) were also going to see an increase; with the salary threshold scheduled to rise to $151,164/year on January 1, 2025, and undergo automatic updates beginning in 2027.

Challenging the Rule in Court: Texas v. U.S. DOL

Responding to the new rule affecting salary thresholds for white-collar exemptions under FLSA, Texas filed a lawsuit attempting to stop it before it went into effect. In June 2024, the court issued an injunction preventing the Department from enforcing the rule against Texas as an employer. However, the July 1, 2024 increase continued to apply to other employers nationwide.

The cases were consolidated and proceeded on cross-motions for summary judgment. On November 15, 2024, Judge Jordan granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs and issued a memorandum opinion and order that set aside and vacated the 2024 Rule.

The federal government appealed the ruling to the Fifth Circuit. The dispute remained active into 2025.

What is the Main Question in the Case?

The main question in the case was whether the U.S. Department of Labor exceeded its authority to define and “delimit” the FLSA executive, administrative, and professional exemptions when it issued the 2024 rule raising salary thresholds and adding an automatic updating mechanism.

What Were the Allegations and Arguments in the Case?

The plaintiffs argued that the 2024 rule exceeded the FLSA's limits because it raised the salary level so significantly that it would override the duties-based inquiry Congress wrote into the statute, effectively making exemption status turn primarily on pay level rather than job duties for millions of workers. Additionally, the court had to consider the automatic updating mechanism and arguments that it would unlawfully allow future salary threshold increases without undergoing the notice-and-comment rulemaking process that generally governs such major regulatory changes.

The Court’s Decision: Texas v. U.S. DOL

The court ruled for Texas and the other plaintiffs and held that the Department’s rule exceeded its statutory authority, granting summary judgment and ordering that the 2024 Rule be “set aside and vacated.” Since the rule was vacated, the planned salary threshold for January 1, 2025 did not take effect. The ruling also nullified the prior July 1, 2024 increase, so thresholds reverted to pre-rule status.

What Makes this Wage-and-Hour Decision a Landmark Case?

Although the order was issued in late 2024, its practical impact landed squarely in 2025. The DOL’s rule was designed around a major January 1, 2025, increase in the salary threshold and a new standard for recurring updates. By vacating the rule nationwide, the Court changed the compliance landscape overnight, particularly for employers that had prepared for (or already completed) reclassifications and pay adjustments in anticipation of the 2025 increase scheduled under the 2024 rule.

Just as importantly, the decision is frequently cited for its remedy: rather than limiting relief to the plaintiffs, the court vacated the rule itself—functionally removing it from the books nationwide, at least unless and until it is revived through appellate review or future rulemaking.

FAQ: Texas v. U.S. DOL

Q: What did the DOL’s 2024 overtime rule try to change?

A: It raised the minimum salary level for the executive, administrative, and professional exemptions from $684/week to $844/week (July 1, 2024), then planned to raise it again to $1,128/week on January 1, 2025, and also increased the HCE threshold—plus it added automatic updates beginning in 2027.

Q: What did the court do in State of Texas v. U.S. Department of Labor?

A: The court granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs and ordered that the 2024 Rule be set aside and vacated.

Q: Did the decision only apply in Texas?

A: No. The earlier injunction was limited to Texas as an employer, but the November 15, 2024 order vacated the rule, and it has since been widely understood to apply nationwide.

Q: What salary threshold applied after the rule was vacated?

A: The salary level reverted to $684/week ($35,568/year) for the standard salary threshold, and the HCE threshold reverted to $107,432/year.

Q: Was the decision appealed?

A: Yes. The federal government appealed the ruling to the Fifth Circuit, and the litigation remained active into 2025.

If you believe you were misclassified as exempt, denied overtime, or not paid for all hours worked, the wage-and-hour attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP can help assess your potential claims and explain your options under federal and state law. Contact the firm’s offices in Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Riverside, or Chicago to discuss how you may be able to pursue unpaid wages and accountability.

The E.M.D. Suit: A Misclassification Complaint that Reshaped Overtime Exemption Disputes

The E.M.D Sales, Inc. v. Carrera case went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, where the Court's 2025 decision reshaped how overtime exemption disputes are proven under the FLSA (Fair Labor Standards Act). At the center of the case is whether workers classified as “outside sales” were improperly denied overtime, and what level of proof employers must meet to defend an exemption.

The Supreme Court case, E.M.D. Sales Inc. v. Carrera arose from an FLSA overtime lawsuit originally filed in Maryland (U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland).

Case: Carrera v. E.M.D. Sales, Inc.

Court: U.S. District Court, District of Maryland

Case No.: 1:17-cv-03066-JKB

Where the Case Started: District Court

The case began as an overtime lawsuit filed in 2017 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland: Carrera et al. v. E.M.D. Sales, Inc. et al., Civil No. JKB-17-3066 (1:17-cv-03066). The plaintiffs, Faustino Sanchez Carrera, Magdaleno Gervacio, and Jesus David Muro, worked as sales representatives. The group sued their employer and its CEO, claiming they failed to pay overtime wages (violating the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)). However, E.M.D. argued the workers were exempt as “outside salesmen.”

The Two Parties in the Case: Carrera v. E.M.D. Sales, Inc.

The plaintiffs who originally filed the suit are Faustino Sanchez Carrera, Jesus David Muro, and Magdaleno Gervacio, who worked as sales representatives for E.M.D. Sales. The plaintiffs alleged they regularly worked more than 40 hours in one week but were denied overtime pay, a practice that violates the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The defendants are E.M.D. Sales, Inc., a food-products distributor, and its CEO, Elda M. Devarie. The company maintained that the plaintiffs were properly treated as exempt “outside sales” employees and therefore not entitled to overtime under the FLSA.

After the Bench Trial: Circuit Court

After the bench trial in March 2021, the district court ruled in favor of the employees, finding that E.M.D. failed to meet the clear-and-convincing standard for the outside sales exemption under that circuit's law. Both parties appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The Fourth Circuit affirmed and maintained the heightened proof standard (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, Case Nos.: 21-1897 and 21-1924).

Petitioning the U.S. Supreme Court:

After the Fourth Circuit affirmed and maintained the District Court’s decision in E.M.D. Sales, Inc. v. Carrera, E.M.D. petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court, which granted certiorari (June 17, 2024), heard argument (November 5, 2024), and decided the case (January 15, 2025). In doing so, the U.S. Supreme Court held that employers need only prove FLSA exemptions by a preponderance of the evidence.

The Main Question in the Case:

The central legal question was what burden of proof an employer must meet to establish that an employee falls within an exemption to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Here, the “outside sales” exemption is used to deny overtime pay. Specifically, the Supreme Court addressed whether an employer must prove an exemption by clear and convincing evidence (a heightened standard applied by the Fourth Circuit) or by the ordinary civil standard, preponderance of the evidence.

A Summary of the Allegations in the Case:

The plaintiffs—three sales representatives—alleged that E.M.D. Sales denied them overtime pay required by the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), even though they routinely worked more than 40 hours per week. They contended their day-to-day work did not fit the “outside sales” exemption because much of their time was spent on non-exempt tasks tied to servicing existing accounts (rather than primarily making sales away from the employer’s place of business).

E.M.D. Sales disputed the claim and maintained the workers were properly classified as exempt outside sales employees, meaning the company argued overtime was not owed under the FLSA.

FAQ: E.M.D. Sales Inc. v. Carrera

Q: What is the “outside sales” exemption under the FLSA?

A: It is an overtime exemption that can apply when an employee’s primary duty is making sales (or obtaining orders/contracts), and the employee is customarily and regularly working away from the employer’s place of business.

Q: In E.M.D.Sales, Inc. v. Carrera: What was the Supreme Court’s decision?

A: The Court held that employers must prove exemptions under FLSA using the ordinary civil standard (preponderance of the evidence) rather than a heightened clear and convincing standard.

Q: Did the decision in this case result in a change to the definition of “outside sales exemption?”

A: No, the definition of “outside sales exemption” remained the same. However, the Court’s decision addressed the strength of evidence the employer must provide to establish that an exemption applies.

Q: What is the practical meaning of “preponderance of the evidence”?

A: This phrase means the employer must show it is more likely than not that the exemption applies based on the evidence presented in the case.

Q: What should employees and employers take away from this case?

A: Employees should understand that exemption disputes are heavily fact-driven (what the job actually requires day-to-day). Employers should ensure that job duties, supervision, and documentation align with any exemption they rely on, because they still bear the burden of proving it.

If you believe you were misclassified as exempt and denied overtime pay, or you were not paid for all hours worked, the employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP can evaluate your wage-and-hour claims and explain your options. Contact the firm’s offices in Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Riverside, or Chicago to discuss how you may be able to recover unpaid wages and pursue accountability under the law.

Can a Company Be Liable for Wrongful Death Based on a Teen’s Interactions With an AI Chatbot?

In Raine v. OpenAI Inc., a family filed a wrongful death lawsuit alleging that a teenager’s interactions with an AI chatbot contributed to his death.

Case: Raine v. OpenAI Inc.

Court: California Superior Court, San Francisco County

Case No.: CGC25628528

The Plaintiff: Raine v. OpenAI Inc.

The plaintiffs are the family of Adam Raine, a California high school student who died by suicide at age 16. The family alleges that interactions with ChatGPT played a role in his death and that OpenAI should be held responsible under wrongful death and related civil theories.

Who Are the Defendants in the Case?

OpenAI Inc. is the defendant in this case. OpenAI is an artificial intelligence company that develops and operates ChatGPT, a consumer-facing chatbot product. The family also sued OpenAI’s chief executive officer in connection with the same events.

A Brief History of the Raine v. OpenAI Case

The family filed suit in San Francisco County Superior Court, asserting claims that include wrongful death, product liability, and negligence. In response, OpenAI filed court papers disputing the allegation that ChatGPT caused the death and describing the teen as having had significant risk factors for self-harm before using the product. OpenAI’s filing also claims that ChatGPT repeatedly encouraged the teen to seek support from trusted individuals and crisis resources, stating that this occurred more than 100 times.

Following the wrongful death lawsuit, OpenAI announced changes to ChatGPT, including added controls that allow parents to limit how teenagers use the chatbot and alerts if the system determines a teenager may be in distress. The case remains active, and the court has not yet issued final findings designating liability.

The Main Question in the Case

Can OpenAI be held legally responsible for wrongful death and related civil claims based on a teenager’s interactions with an AI chatbot?

The Allegations: Raine v. OpenAI Inc.

Based on the verified summary you provided, the lawsuit includes allegations such as:

1. Wrongful Death: The family of the deceased teen alleges the product’s conduct and/or failures contributed to their child’s death and that the defendant should be held liable for the resulting loss.

2. Product Liability: The complaint asserts the consumer product was unsafe as designed, lacked adequate safeguards, and failed to provide adequate warnings for foreseeable use and misuse.

3. Negligence: The lawsuit also alleges negligence, which typically centers on whether the company acted reasonably in designing, deploying, monitoring, and updating a product used by the public, including minors.

OpenAI disputes these allegations and argues that the product was not the cause of the death based on the overall chat history and the teen’s preexisting risk factors described in its filing.

OpenAI’s Defense Position as Described in the Court Filing

The company’s response to the wrongful death lawsuit emphasized several key themes:

* Tragedy acknowledged, causation denied: OpenAI described the death as a tragedy but asserted it was not caused by ChatGPT, citing the full chat history as evidence.

* Safety prompts and directing the user to seek help: OpenAI stated that ChatGPT directed the teen to connect with crisis resources and trusted individuals more than 100 times.

* Preexisting risk factors: OpenAI asserted the teen exhibited significant risk factors for self-harm before he ever used ChatGPT.

* Company changes after the lawsuit: After the suit was filed, OpenAI announced new controls for parents and alert mechanisms for potential teen distress.

When considering the defensive arguments, the court will have to consider the evidence, any applicable legal standards, and its own evaluation of foreseeability, causation, and duty.

FAQ: Raine v. OpenAI Inc.

Q: What is a wrongful death claim?

A: A wrongful death claim is a civil action brought by certain surviving family members or representatives seeking damages after a person dies due to another party’s alleged wrongful act or neglect.

Q: What does “product liability” usually mean in a lawsuit like this?

A: Product liability claims generally allege a product was unsafe due to design, inadequate warnings, or insufficient safeguards, and that the unsafe condition contributed to harm.

Q: Does an AI company automatically become liable if a user is harmed after using the product?

A: Not automatically. Liability typically depends on duty, breach, causation, and damages, along with defenses such as warnings, safety measures, user conduct, and whether the harm was foreseeable and substantially caused by the product.

Q: What is the case’s current posture based on what’s been shared?

A: The case has been filed, and OpenAI has responded with arguments disputing causation and emphasizing safety prompts. The court has not yet made final findings on liability.

Q: Why do companies change products after lawsuits are filed?

A: Companies sometimes update safeguards, warnings, and controls in response to risk concerns, public scrutiny, or internal reviews. Those changes do not necessarily determine liability, but they can become part of the broader story in litigation.

If you lost a loved one and believe a company’s product design, safety failures, or negligent conduct contributed to that death, the wrongful death attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP can help. Contact one of our offices in Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Riverside, or Chicago today to learn how to pursue accountability and justice.

Did Johnson & Johnson Face a Nearly $1 Billion Wrongful Death Verdict Over Alleged Asbestos-Contaminated Talc?

In Mae K. Moore v. Johnson & Johnson, et al., a Los Angeles jury awarded nearly $1 billion to the family of an 88-year-old woman who developed mesothelioma and later died, after plaintiffs alleged her illness was caused by asbestos contamination in Johnson & Johnson’s talc-based baby powder.

Case: Mae K. Moore v. Johnson & Johnson, et al.

Court: Los Angeles County Superior Court

Case No.: 21STCV05513

The Plaintiff: Moore v. Johnson & Johnson

Mae Moore was described as a devoted wife, a mother of three, and an avid user of Johnson & Johnson’s baby powder. Following her death, her family filed wrongful death claims alleging that the talc-based product Moore utilized harbored asbestos contamination, and this exposure led to the development of mesothelioma. Moore received a diagnosis of mesothelioma in December 2020 and succumbed to the disease approximately a year later, at the age of 88.

Who Are the Defendants in the Case?

Johnson & Johnson and other entities named in the lawsuit are the defendants.

Johnson & Johnson is a global company that has sold consumer products, including talc-based baby powder. In this case, the plaintiffs alleged the defendants were responsible for placing a talc product into the market that was contaminated with asbestos and for failing to provide adequate warnings. Johnson & Johnson has denied that its talc contains asbestos or causes cancer and has stated it plans to appeal the jury’s verdict.

A Brief History of the Moore v. Johnson & Johnson Case

• Filed in the Superior Court of Los Angeles (Case No. 21STCV05513)

• Date of Filing: Feb. 9, 2021

• Claims: Alleged asbestos exposure from talc-based products leading to wrongful death

• Proceeded through litigation to jury trial before Judge Ruth Ann Kwan

• After deliberating for two days, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the family totaling close to $1 billion.

• The jury unanimously found that Johnson & Johnson acted with malice or oppression.

• Compensatory and punitive damages were awarded.

• In response to the findings, Johnson & Johnson stated an intent to appeal.

The Main Question in the Case

Did Johnson & Johnson’s talc-based baby powder expose Mae Moore to asbestos in a way that caused her to develop mesothelioma and ultimately led to her death? And if so, did Johnson & Johnson’s conduct justify punitive damages based on findings like malice or oppression?

The Allegations: Moore v. Johnson & Johnson

The third amended complaint, as described in the reporting you provided, included a broad set of theories commonly seen in wrongful death product liability litigation. The allegations included:

1. Asbestos-contaminated talc exposure

The plaintiffs alleged that Moore regularly used Johnson & Johnson’s baby powder and that the talc in it was contaminated with asbestos.

2. Wrongful death and survivorship claims

The claims sought recovery for Moore’s death and for harms suffered before her death, based on the allegation that product exposure caused a fatal disease.

3. Product liability and failure-to-warn theories

The suit asserted theories of negligence, strict liability, breach of implied warranty, and failure to warn, based on the allegation that the product was not safe as sold or that consumers were not adequately warned of the risk.

4. Fraud and concealment-related allegations

The claims also included allegations such as fraud, concealment, and conspiracy-related theories, reflecting the plaintiffs’ position that the conduct went beyond an ordinary product defect case.

As with any contested litigation, defendants can dispute both causation and fault. In this matter, Johnson & Johnson has denied that its talc contains asbestos or causes cancer.

FAQ: Moore v. Johnson & Johnson

Q: What is a wrongful death claim?

A: A wrongful death claim is brought by certain surviving family members or representatives seeking damages after a person dies due to another party’s wrongful act or neglect.

Q: What is mesothelioma, and why is it relevant in asbestos cases?

A: Mesothelioma is a cancer commonly associated with asbestos exposure. In this case, the plaintiffs alleged Moore’s mesothelioma resulted from asbestos-contaminated talc exposure.

Q: What is the difference between compensatory damages and punitive damages?

A: Compensatory damages are intended to compensate for losses and harm (economic and non-economic). Punitive damages are intended to punish and deter conduct found to be especially harmful, such as conduct involving malice, oppression, or fraud.

Q: Does a jury verdict mean the case is over?

A: Not always. Defendants may file post-trial motions and appeals. Appellate courts can affirm, reverse, or modify the judgment depending on the legal issues and trial record.

Q: Why do punitive damages sometimes make verdicts dramatically larger?

A: Punitive damages can be many times larger than compensatory damages because they are designed to deter and punish, not simply reimburse losses.

If you lost a loved one and believe corporate misconduct, a dangerous product, or a failure to warn contributed to that death, the wrongful death attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP can help. Contact one of our offices in Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Riverside, or Chicago today to learn how to pursue accountability and justice.

Can a $22,000 Wage-and-Hour Settlement Still Support a Large Attorneys’ Fee Award?

In Alvarado v. Wal-Mart Associates, Inc., the Ninth Circuit addressed a question that shows up often in California wage-and-hour litigation: when a plaintiff settles individual claims for a relatively modest amount, can she still seek substantial attorneys’ fees for work that also touched related class or PAGA theories? The court held that a section 998 settlement agreement did not automatically bar recovery of fees for work on related claims if that work was intertwined with the individual claims. But the Ninth Circuit also made clear that fee awards cannot be “because vibes.” Trial courts must explain how they arrived at the number. Here, the Ninth Circuit vacated the fee award and sent the case back for a clearer explanation.

Case: Alvarado v. Wal-Mart Associates, Inc.

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Case No.: 23-3927

The Plaintiff: Alvarado v. Wal-Mart Associates, Inc.

The plaintiff is a former employee of a large retail company who worked for approximately six weeks at a California store. She alleged that during her employment she was denied meal and rest breaks, was not paid overtime, did not receive compliant wage statements, and was required to use her personal cell phone for work-related tasks without reimbursement. Based on those allegations, she filed a lawsuit asserting individual claims as well as putative class and PAGA claims for violations of California’s Labor Code.

Who Are the Defendants in the Case?

Wal-Mart Associates, Inc. is the defendant in the case.

Wal-Mart is a nationwide retailer with operations throughout California. In this lawsuit, the company was accused of wage-and-hour violations involving breaks, overtime, wage statements, and expense reimbursement policies and practices. The case also addresses how employers can structure settlements and litigation strategy when a case begins with class and PAGA theories but later proceeds primarily on an individual basis.

A Brief History of the Alvarado v. Wal-Mart Case

The plaintiff filed the action in state court, asserting individual, class, and PAGA claims. The company removed the case to federal court.

The United States District Court for the Central District of California dismissed several of the plaintiff’s class claims and denied class certification on the remaining class claim. After that, the plaintiff continued pursuing her individual claims and PAGA claims. Shortly before trial, the parties resolved the individual claims through a $22,000 settlement under California Code of Civil Procedure section 998. As part of the deal, the plaintiff dismissed her PAGA claims without prejudice and preserved her right to recover reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs related to her individual claims.

After the settlement, the district court awarded the plaintiff $297,799 in attorneys’ fees and $14,630 in costs. The record reflects that the plaintiff had already voluntarily reduced her fee request by nearly half, excluding time spent on class certification work and certain legal assistant time.

Wal-Mart appealed. The Ninth Circuit held the section 998 settlement did not automatically preclude a fee request for work on related claims, as long as the work was sufficiently intertwined with the individual claims under the framework courts use to evaluate fee requests in cases with mixed success. However, the Ninth Circuit vacated the fee award. It remanded the case because the district court did not provide a sufficiently clear explanation of how it arrived at the awarded amount.

The Main Question in the Case

When a plaintiff settles her individual wage-and-hour claims under section 998 and agrees to dismiss other claims (like PAGA) without prejudice, can she still recover attorneys’ fees for work that also related to other claims that were not ultimately litigated to judgment, so long as the work was intertwined with the individual claims? And what level of explanation must a district court provide when awarding attorneys’ fees?

The Allegations: Alvarado v. Wal-Mart Associates, Inc.

The case involved wage-and-hour allegations commonly seen in California employment litigation, including:

1. Meal and rest break violations

The plaintiff alleged she was denied the legally required meal and rest breaks during her employment.

2. Unpaid overtime

She alleged she worked overtime hours without receiving proper overtime compensation.

3. Wage statement violations

She alleged the wage statements she received did not comply with California Labor Code requirements.

4. Expense reimbursement for required cell phone use

She alleged the employer required her to use her personal cell phone for work-related purposes without reimbursing the related costs.

The appellate decision discussed in your summary focused less on whether those violations occurred and more on what fee recovery is permitted and how fee awards must be justified procedurally.

The Ninth Circuit’s Ruling: Fees May Be Recoverable, But the Court Must Explain Why

The Ninth Circuit addressed two key points.

1) The court held that the settlement agreement did not categorically bar attorneys’ fees for work on related claims under the standard used to evaluate fee requests in cases where a party achieved partial success. The key question is whether the work on related claims was intertwined with and contributed to the individual claims that were actually settled. If the claims share a common core of facts and legal work, time spent on related claims can still sometimes be compensable.

2) The court found that the district court abused its discretion by failing to offer a clear explanation. Even if a fee award is legally permitted, the judge still has to show the math and reasoning. The Ninth Circuit faulted the district court for failing to provide a concise yet clear explanation of how it determined the final fee amount. Because the explanation was insufficient, the appellate court vacated the award and remanded the case to the district court for a more transparent fee analysis.

Why This Case Matters for Wage-and-Hour Litigation

This decision underscores two practical realities:

* Fee exposure can be significant even when the damages recovered by an individual plaintiff are relatively modest, especially in wage-and-hour cases where fee-shifting statutes may allow prevailing employees to recover reasonable fees.

* Trial courts must create a record. Fee awards cannot be affirmed on appeal if the judge does not clearly explain the basis for the number, particularly when the requested amounts are large and the litigation involves multiple claims with mixed outcomes.

FAQ: Alvarado v. Wal-Mart Associates, Inc.

Q: What is a section 998 settlement?

A: California Code of Civil Procedure section 998 is a settlement tool that can shift certain costs and influence fee exposure depending on whether a party beats or fails to beat the offer at trial. Parties often use it to encourage settlement and manage litigation risk.

Q: Why would attorneys’ fees be much higher than the settlement amount?

A: In wage-and-hour cases, fee-shifting statutes can allow a prevailing employee to seek reasonable attorneys’ fees. Litigation can be time-intensive even when the employee’s personal damages are relatively small.

Q: Did the Ninth Circuit say the plaintiff could not recover fees?

A: No. The Ninth Circuit held that the settlement did not automatically preclude recovery of fees for intertwined work. Still, it vacated the award because the district court did not adequately explain how it reached the fee amount.

Q: What does it mean for claims to be “intertwined”?

A: It generally means the claims share a common core of facts and legal work, so time spent on one claim also reasonably advances the other.

Q: What happens on remand?

A: The district court must reassess the fee request and provide a concise but clear explanation for any fee award it enters.

If you believe you were denied meal or rest breaks, not paid overtime, provided inaccurate wage statements, or required to use personal devices for work without reimbursement, the employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP can help. Contact one of our offices in Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Riverside, or Chicago today to learn how to hold your employer accountable.