Did Wells Fargo Misclassify Senior Premier Bankers and Deny Overtime Pay?

A high-profile overtime case in federal court alleges Wells Fargo misclassified thousands of “Senior Premier Bankers” as exempt from overtime—despite day-to-day duties that looked more like frontline sales and service. The lawsuit has moved toward resolution with a multi-state settlement valued at $48.5 million, signaling the cost of classification mistakes when they scale across a large workforce.

Case: Sabrina Perez v. Wells Fargo

Court: United States District Court, Central District of California

Case No.: 24-cv-4077-SRM

The Plaintiff: Sabrina Perez (on behalf of a class of Senior Premier Bankers)

Senior Premier Banker Sabrina Perez filed a federal complaint in Los Angeles alleging she and other SPBs were misclassified as exempt and denied overtime pay. According to the complaint, SPBs routinely performed non-exempt tasks—opening and closing accounts, assisting customers, and selling banking products—while branches were allegedly understaffed, pushing hours well beyond 40 per week without overtime. Perez sought to represent a class and collective of similarly situated SPBs (including Premier Banker roles with similar titles).

The Defendant: Wells Fargo

Wells Fargo denies liability, but the case evolved quickly. Plaintiffs filed a motion on September 4, 2025, asking the court to give the $48,500,000 class settlement preliminary approval. If approved, the settlement would cover approximately 4,230 class members and related fees and costs, with an estimated average recovery of about $7,137 per person. Plaintiffs also alleged meal and rest break violations and brought a claim for civil penalties under California’s Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA). Reports indicate the company has since reclassified SPBs to hourly, non-exempt status, which, if accurate, means overtime must be paid going forward.

A History of the Case: Allegations, Multi-State Scope, and Settlement

The complaint alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and parallel state wage laws (including California and Colorado), focusing on two themes:

Misclassification: SPBs were treated as exempt despite primarily providing customer service and sales support—tasks typically non-exempt.

Systemic overtime exposure: Chronic understaffing allegedly led to regular unpaid overtime, along with missed meal and rest breaks.

The proposed settlement covers these job titles during defined periods:

• California: March 27, 2020, through the Release Date*

• Colorado: February 2, 2021, through the Release Date*

• All other states: February 22, 2021, through the Release Date*

*“Release Date” as defined in the settlement papers.

On September 4, 2025, plaintiffs sought preliminary approval. If granted, the court would authorize notice to the class and set a hearing for final approval. According to case updates provided, class members would be notified by mail and email.

The Main Question Being Considered: Were SPBs Exempt—or Entitled to Overtime?

The core legal question is whether Senior Premier Bankers qualify for any white-collar exemption (executive, administrative, or professional). In wage cases, titles don’t decide exemption—actual duties do. Where employees primarily provide customer service, follow scripts, and sell standardized products (instead of exercising substantial discretion on significant business matters), courts frequently find non-exempt status and require overtime for hours worked over 40 in a week (or daily thresholds under California law).

Here, the complaint framed SPB duties as routine and production-oriented—not policy-making or independently discretionary; undercutting exemption defenses and supporting overtime claims under federal and state law.

Why This Matters to California Workers

California has some of the nation’s strictest wage and hour protections, including:

• Daily overtime after 8 hours/day (and after 40 hours/week),

• Meal and rest break requirements, and

• Detailed wage statement obligations.

Misclassification disputes often arise in customer-facing banking, sales, and service roles where job titles sound managerial, but the day-to-day work is standardized and closely directed. This case underscores a practical takeaway for California employees: if your primary duties are sales support and service—and you don’t truly manage people or exercise independent judgment on matters of significance—you may be non-exempt and owed overtime.

FAQ: Sabrina Perez v. Wells Fargo

Q: What laws are at issue in this case?

A: The case alleges violations of the FLSA and state wage laws (including California and Colorado). In California, related claims typically implicate Labor Code sections governing overtime, meal and rest breaks, and wage statements, and may include a PAGA claim for civil penalties.

Q: What is the status of the case?

A: Plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval of a $48.5 million settlement on September 4, 2025. If the court grants preliminary approval, notice will be issued to class members, and a hearing for final approval will follow.

Q: Who is included in the proposed settlement?

A: According to the case updates provided, approximately 4,230 class members in defined SPB/Premier Banker roles are covered for work periods beginning in 2020–2021 through the Release Date (varying by state), with an estimated average payment of $7,137 per person (subject to court approval and settlement administration).

Q: Does reclassifying employees fix past wage issues?

A: Reclassification affects future pay practices. Past claims for unpaid overtime, missed breaks, or penalties are typically addressed through settlements or judgments and are not cured by a forward-looking policy change.

If you believe your employer misclassified your role or failed to pay overtime, the experienced employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP can help at offices in Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Riverside, and Chicago. Contact our office to discuss your situation and learn about your options for recovering unpaid wages and penalties under California law.

Did Reed Smith Misclassify a Manager to Avoid Paying Overtime?

A California lawsuit against one of the nation's largest law firms highlights a growing problem in white-collar workplaces—misclassifying salaried employees to avoid paying overtime. Medeiros v. Reed Smith LLP shows that even major corporate employers are not exempt from scrutiny under California's strict wage and hour laws.

Case: Medeiros v. Reed Smith LLP

Court: Los Angeles County Superior Court

Case No.: 25STCV04101

Get to Know the Plaintiff in the Case: Medeiros, Former Employee

The plaintiff, Phoebe Medeiros, worked for Reed Smith LLP as a Senior Manager for Business Development and Operations, focusing on the firm's private equity practice. Originally based in New York, Medeiros transferred to Reed Smith's Southern California office in late 2022.

Despite her management title, Medeiros claims that her role functioned more like a traditional employee position. According to her complaint, she worked up to 90 hours per week, often 7 days a week, and occasionally in 36-hour shifts. She alleges that Reed Smith intentionally misclassified her as an exempt manager to avoid paying overtime and other compensation required by California law.

Her lawsuit seeks at least $50,000 in unpaid overtime wages, penalties, and other damages. According to Medeiros, her timesheets were altered to reflect standard eight-hour workdays, even though her actual hours far exceeded that schedule.

The Defendant, Reed Smith Global Law Firm :

The defendant in the case is a global law firm, Reed Smith LLP. Headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, the Firm employs more than 1,500 attorneys and staff members worldwide. The firm's clients include Fortune 500 corporations, major financial institutions, and multinational enterprises.

In this case, Reed Smith has been accused of failing to compensate a non-attorney staff member fairly under California's wage and hour statutes, which are among the most employee-friendly in the country. The lawsuit also names Reed Smith partner Mark Pedretti as a central figure in the events leading to the claim, though he was not listed as a defendant. Medeiros alleges that Pedretti directed most of her daily work, including preparing business pitch materials, attending meetings, taking notes, and managing follow-up communications—duties that fell squarely within an employee's role rather than an executive's.

At the time of filing, Reed Smith had not provided a public statement regarding the allegations.

A History of the Case: From Complaint to Courtroom

Medeiros filed her complaint on February 14, 2025, in Los Angeles County Superior Court. The filing accused Reed Smith of multiple labor law violations, including unpaid overtime, failure to provide meal and rest breaks, and wage misclassification.

The lawsuit details how Medeiros's job title did not reflect her actual responsibilities. While labeled as a "manager," she alleges that she had no authority to hire, fire, or make independent business decisions, key criteria required for an employee to be classified as exempt under California labor law.

Medeiros has since left Reed Smith and currently works as a Senior Business Development Manager at Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer, another major international law firm.

The Main Question Being Considered: Were "Managers" Denied Overtime Pay?

The core issue in Medeiros v. Reed Smith LLP is whether the law firm wrongly classified a salaried business development manager as exempt from overtime pay.

California labor law requires employers to pay overtime to most employees who work more than eight hours in a day or forty hours in a week—unless those employees truly qualify as exempt under the executive, administrative, or professional exemptions. Titles alone aren't enough; the exemption must match the employee's actual job duties and level of discretion.

If Medeiros's allegations prove accurate, this case could serve as a warning to law firms and corporations that rely heavily on administrative or marketing staff who routinely exceed normal working hours without overtime pay.

Why Does This Case Matter to California Workers?

Labor laws are in place to protect California employees from overwork and underpayment—regardless of job title. Cases like Medeiros v. Reed Smith LLP demonstrate that misclassification is not limited to blue-collar or hourly jobs. White-collar employees in sales, business development, and administrative roles are also vulnerable when employers use inflated titles to skirt wage laws.

For California workers, this case reinforces an important point. If your primary duties don't involve managing people or exercising independent decision-making, you may be entitled to overtime pay, even if your employer calls you a "manager."

FAQ: Medeiros v. Reed Smith LLP

Q: What laws are at issue in this case?

A: The lawsuit cites violations of California Labor Code Sections 510, 512, 226, and 1194, which cover overtime pay, meal and rest breaks, accurate wage statements, and the right to recover unpaid wages.

Q: Why does a worker's job title matter in wage and hour cases?

A: Job titles don't determine exemption status—job duties do. An employee must regularly perform executive or administrative tasks with significant authority to qualify as exempt. Otherwise, the employee must receive overtime pay for extra hours worked.

Q: What can California employees do if they suspect misclassification?

A: Workers who believe they've been wrongly classified can file a complaint or contact an employment law attorney to recover unpaid wages, penalties, and damages for missed breaks.

If you believe your employer has misclassified your position or failed to pay overtime, the experienced employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP can help. Contact our office in Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Riverside, or Chicago today for a free consultation to learn about your rights and how to recover the pay you've earned.

Did Fred Alger Management Retaliate Against a Whistleblower?

When employees come forward with information about potential securities law violations, they're often taking a personal and professional risk. In Ott v. Fred Alger Management, Inc., a federal court examined how far those whistleblower protections extend under the Dodd-Frank Act, and whether employees are covered even when they don't qualify for an SEC financial reward.

Case: Ott v. Fred Alger Management, Inc. et al

Court: Southern District Court of New York

Case No.: 1:2011-cv-04418

The Plaintiff: Ott

The plaintiff, Ott, was employed by Fred Alger Management, Inc., a financial management and investment firm. During her employment, Ott disclosed information to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) about conduct she believed violated federal securities laws.

Following her disclosure, Ott alleged that she was retaliated against, which is a violation of the anti-retaliation provisions found in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. Specifically, she claimed her employer took adverse actions after she cooperated with federal regulators and reported potential wrongdoing.

The Defendant: Fred Alger Management, Inc.

Fred Alger Management, Inc. is a well-known investment advisory firm based in New York, overseeing billions in assets. The company denied Ott's claims, arguing that her disclosures were not "original information" as defined by the SEC's whistleblower program.

Under the defendant's interpretation, only whistleblowers eligible for an SEC award could be shielded by Dodd-Frank's anti-retaliation provisions. Because Ott's information did not qualify for a reward, the company maintained that she was not protected from retaliation under 15 U.S.C. § 78u-6(h).

A History of the Case: How the Court Interpreted Dodd-Frank

The Southern District of New York rejected the company's narrow reading of the law. In a significant decision, the court held that a whistleblower need not qualify for or receive a reward to be protected from retaliation.

The court pointed directly to the SEC's implementing regulations, which clarify that protections against retaliation apply "whether or not you satisfy the requirements, procedures, and conditions to qualify for an award." This means the law safeguards employees who provide information in good faith, even if that information later proves ineligible for an SEC payout.

By focusing on the employee's intent and cooperation rather than the report's outcome, the ruling broadened whistleblower protections nationwide.

The Main Question Being Considered: Who Qualifies for Whistleblower Protection?

The key issue before the court was whether Dodd-Frank's anti-retaliation protections extend to individuals who report possible violations to the SEC but do not qualify for a monetary award.

The court's answer was clear: yes. The anti-retaliation clause is designed to encourage employees to speak up without fear, not to restrict protection only to those who provide profitable or "original" tips. The court emphasized that retaliation protections serve a different purpose from reward eligibility—they exist to prevent employers from punishing employees for doing the right thing.

Why Does This Case Matter to California Workers?

While this case originated in New York, its impact extends to employees nationwide. For California workers (especially those in finance, healthcare, or technology) this decision reinforces that whistleblower protections don't depend on technical eligibility for rewards.

California's own Labor Code Section 1102.5 and the California Whistleblower Protection Act mirror these principles. Employees are protected when they report suspected illegal conduct, whether internally to supervisors or externally to agencies like the SEC.

The Ott case stands as a reminder that integrity and accountability in the workplace should never come at the cost of personal security or employment.

FAQ: Ott v. Fred Alger Management, Inc.

Q: What law did this case interpret?

A: The court interpreted 15 U.S.C. § 78u-6(h), part of the Dodd-Frank Act, which protects employees from retaliation when they report possible securities law violations.

Q: Did the court limit protection to those eligible for an SEC reward?

A: No. The court explicitly held that anti-retaliation protections apply even if the employee's report doesn't qualify for a reward, as long as it was made in good faith.

Q: What does this mean for California whistleblowers?

A: It reinforces that employees in California are protected when reporting misconduct—verbally or in writing—even if the information later turns out ineligible for compensation or doesn't lead to enforcement action.

If you've been fired or retaliated against for reporting illegal or unethical activity on the job, the experienced employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP can help. Contact our office today to discuss your situation and explore your legal options at our offices in Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Riverside, and Chicago.

Kasten v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp.

What began as a simple workplace complaint over a poorly placed time clock became one of the most influential retaliation decisions in recent employment law history. Kasten v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp. clarified a key protection for American workers: employees cannot be fired for raising oral complaints about wage violations under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

Case: Kasten v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp.

Court: Wisconsin Western District Court

Case No.: 07 C 0686 (W.D. Wis.); 09-834 (U.S. Supreme Court)

The Plaintiff: Kevin Kasten

Kevin Kasten worked for Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics, a manufacturer of high-performance materials used in automotive and industrial applications. During his employment, Kasten began questioning the company’s timekeeping practices—specifically, the placement of time clocks between the changing area and the production floor.

He argued that this setup effectively denied workers pay for the time spent putting on and taking off required protective gear, which could violate the FLSA’s rules on compensable work time. When Kasten complained to management, both orally and in writing, he alleged that his concerns were dismissed.

Shortly thereafter, Kasten was terminated—officially for failing to record his time properly. He believed, however, that the termination was a form of retaliation for his repeated attempts to raise the issue.

The Defendant: Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp.

The defendant in the case, Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics, is a multinational manufacturer. They denied Kasten's allegations and maintained that his termination was based on policy violations, not retaliation. In court, the company argued that even if Kasten had complained, his oral statements didn't constitute “filed” complaints (under the FLSA’s anti-retaliation provision). Their argument hinged on the FLSA's language, which indicates the intention to protect employees who have “filed any complaint.” Saint-Gobain contended that this phrase covered only written complaints; a narrow interpretation that would exclude many informal, verbal reports from legal protection.

A History of the Case: From Wisconsin to the Supreme Court

The district court and Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals initially sided with the employer, agreeing that the FLSA did not extend to verbal complaints. Kasten appealed.

In 2011, the Supreme Court issued a 6–2 decision reversing the lower courts ruling. Justice Breyer, writing for the majority, held that both oral and written complaints are protected under the FLSA’s anti-retaliation provision. The Court reasoned that excluding oral complaints would undermine the Act’s purpose; to protect workers who seek to assert their wage and hour rights, especially those who may lack the literacy or resources to file formal written reports.

Justice Antonin Scalia, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, dissented, arguing that the plain text of “filed” implied a written document. Nonetheless, the majority opinion established that an oral complaint made to an employer or a government agency is enough to trigger federal anti-retaliation protection.

The Main Question Being Considered: What Constitutes a “Complaint” Under the FLSA?

In Kasten v. Saint-Gobain, the main question was simple but far-reaching: Does the FLSA protect workers who make verbal complaints about wage violations?

The Supreme Court’s answer reshaped labor law enforcement. By confirming that oral complaints count, the Court broadened employee protections and encouraged open communication about wage violations without fear of retaliation.

Employers now face heightened responsibility to take verbal reports seriously, document internal investigations, and avoid punitive action against workers who speak up.

Why Does This Case Matter to California Workers?

California’s wage and hour laws are already among the nation’s strongest. Still, the Kasten decision reinforces a key principle: employees don’t have to put their concerns in writing to be protected.

Under both federal and California law, workers who report labor violations (verbally or in writing) are shielded from retaliation. So if an employee complains about unpaid overtime, missed breaks, or unsafe conditions, firing or disciplining them for speaking up can expose their employer to liability for wrongful termination, retaliation, or whistleblower claims.

For California workers, this case underscores the importance of knowing your rights, and for employers, it highlights the need for consistent policies that treat all employee complaints as protected activity.

FAQ: Kasten v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp.

Q: What law was at the center of this case?

A: The case centered on the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), which sets national standards for minimum wage, overtime pay, and worker protections. The dispute focused on the FLSA’s anti-retaliation provision.

Q: What did the Supreme Court decide?

A: The Court ruled that both oral and written complaints about FLSA violations are protected, meaning employees cannot be legally terminated or punished for raising verbal concerns about pay or working conditions.

Q: How does this ruling affect California workers?

A: It strengthens retaliation protections for all employees, aligning with California’s own Labor Code Section 98.6, which similarly protects workers from retaliation when they raise wage and hour concerns—whether the complaint is written or verbal.

If you’ve been retaliated against or wrongfully terminated after reporting wage violations or workplace concerns, the experienced employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP can help at offices in Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Riverside, and Chicago. Contact our office today for a free consultation and learn how we can help you protect your rights.

Daphne Campbell v. Monte Carlo Condominium Association, AKAM On-Site Inc., and EMS Protective Group

The landmark $100 million jury verdict in Campbell v. Monte Carlo Condominium wrongful death lawsuit emphasizes that the court takes corporate responsibility in property management and security seriously. The plaintiffs in the case showed that multiple responsible entities failed to protect residents from a foreseeable tragedy.

Case: Daphne Campbell v. Monte Carlo Condominium Association, AKAM On-Site Inc., and EMS Protective Group

Court: Miami-Dade County Circuit Court, Florida

Case No.: 2022-001193-CA-01

The Plaintiff: Estate of Jason Campbell (Led by Daphne Campbell)

After the 2021 fatal shooting of her son, Jason Campbell, Daphne Campbell filed a wrongful death lawsuit alleging that the Monte Carlo Condominium Association, its management company, AKAM On-Site Inc., and the EMS Protective Group security firm failed to maintain adequate security and allowed a known threat to enter the property. The plaintiffs claimed that the act of violence that took Campbell's life could have been prevented so when they filed the wrongful death lawsuit seeking damages; they also sought accountability. The plaintiffs' argument insisted that property management and security protocol negligence directly contributed to Campbell's death.

The Defendants: Monte Carlo Condominium Association, AKAM On-Site Inc., and EMS Protective Group

Three key "groups" or entities were listed as defendants in the case based on the plaintiffs' belief that between them they held the responsibility for property safety and management:

1. Monte Carlo Condominium Association, which oversaw the premises;

2. AKAM On-Site Inc., the property management firm responsible for operational safety and building access; and

3. EMS Protective Group, the contracted security provider.

According to the complaint, each entity had prior notice of safety concerns and failed to take meaningful action. According to the plaintiffs, the companies allegedly ignored the reports of unauthorized entry and failed to warn their residents of potential danger, even after the shooter had previously entered the premises armed.

A History of the Case: From Tragedy to Verdict

The tragedy occurred when Lakoria Washington, reportedly the ex-boyfriend of Jason Campbell’s girlfriend, entered the Monte Carlo Condominium complex armed and opened fire. Washington had previously been involved in an incident at the property and was known to security and management.

Despite these warning signs, access control and surveillance systems were reportedly inadequate. The plaintiffs argued that the defendants’ collective failure to implement appropriate security measures created an unsafe environment and directly led to Jason Campbell’s death.

After a full trial, a Miami-Dade County jury awarded $100 million to the Campbell family. The verdict assigned liability as follows:

• 57% to AKAM On-Site Inc. (property manager)

• 18% to the Monte Carlo Condominium Association

• 18% to EMS Protective Group (security firm)

• 7% to the tenant who allowed the shooter access

The jury found that the defendants’ negligence made the shooting foreseeable and that they breached their duty to provide adequate protection for residents and guests. The award will be distributed among Jason Campbell’s surviving parents and children.

Main Question: Was the Shooting a Foreseeable Event?

At the heart of the case was a critical legal question: can a property owner or manager be held liable when a third-party criminal act leads to death on the premises?

The jury determined that, in this case, the answer was yes. Based on the evidence in the case, the shooter entered the property without authorization on a prior occasion, site management knew (or should have known) of ongoing threats, and no meaningful action was taken to address those risks by any of the defendants. The verdict reaffirmed that foreseeability and negligence in maintaining safe premises can lead to liability even when the harm originates from a criminal act by a third party.

Why Does This Case Matter to California Residents?

Although this case unfolded in Florida, its implications reach much further. California's property owners and management companies are held to a legal duty to offer reasonable security for their tenants, employees, and guests. "Offering reasonable security" includes:

• Addressing known threats

• Securing access points

• Taking steps to prevent foreseeable violence

California courts have consistently held that failing to provide adequate security (especially if there are prior incidents) can lead to premises liability and wrongful death liability. The Campbell case serves as a powerful reminder to California landlords, HOAs, and employers alike that safety should never be an afterthought.

FAQ: Premises Liability and Wrongful Death Cases

Q: What legal claim did the Campbell family bring?

A: The family filed a wrongful death and premises liability lawsuit, alleging that the property owner, manager, and security provider failed to maintain a safe environment and ignored prior warnings about the shooter.

Q: How did the jury assign fault among the defendants?

A: The property manager, AKAM On-Site Inc., was found primarily responsible, with 57% of the fault. The condominium association and security company were each assigned 18%, while 7% of fault was attributed to the specific tenant who granted access to the shooter.

Q: Can a California owner be held liable for a third-party crime on their property?

A: Yes. In California, a property owner or property manager can be held liable if a criminal act committed on their property is foreseeable and they failed to take reasonable preventive measures. Some examples include failing to maintain locks or gate latches, ignoring security complaints, or failing to hire appropriate security.

If you’ve lost a loved one due to negligent security or unsafe property conditions, the experienced wrongful death attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP can help at offices in Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Riverside, and Chicago. Contact our office today to discuss your case and learn more about your rights under California law.

The Estate of David Loree v. TNT Crane & Rigging, Inc.

The wrongful death lawsuit filed by the family of David Loree against TNT Crane & Rigging, Inc. became one of the most striking examples of how a jury can respond when a company’s safety failures lead to devastating consequences.

Case: The Estate of David Loree v. TNT Crane & Rigging, Inc.

Court: District Court of Harris County, Texas

Case No.: 021-68047, followed by Appeal No. 14-25-00776-CV

The Plaintiff, Estate of David Loree, Represented by Loree's Widow:

The plaintiff is represented by David Loree’s widow, Milena Loree, along with their children Zackary, Cody, and Mary. The family brought the wrongful death lawsuit individually and on behalf of the estate of the late David Loree after Loree lost his life in a catastrophic incident involving heavy construction equipment operated by TNT Crane & Rigging. The family alleged that TNT’s systemic disregard for safety protocols directly caused his death.

The case centered on claims of gross negligence—asserting that TNT Crane & Rigging failed to maintain a safe work environment, properly inspect and operate its cranes, and adequately train personnel to prevent foreseeable accidents.

The Defendant: TNT Crane & Rigging, Inc.

TNT Crane & Rigging, Inc. is a nationwide crane and heavy lifting services operation based out of Texas. According to the original court documents, TNT's initial response to the plaintiff's claims was to deny liability for the incident, indicating that the company's actions exhibited reasonable care and compliance with safety standards. During the early stages of litigation, the defendant argued that there were other factors (including the decedent's actions) that may have contributed. In response, the plaintiffs' counsel provided the court with extensive evidence of repeated safety lapses, warnings the company disregarded, and corporate practices that clearly prioritized productivity rather than safety.

From Trial to Settlement: A History of the Wrongful Death Case

After almost four weeks of trial, the jury found the company liable in the wrongful death of David Loree. The jury found the company's negligence egregious and warranting damages (both compensatory and punitive). The jury awarded the Loree Estate (plaintiff) with $640 million, including $480 million in punitive damages, which is a staggering figure meant to punish and deter similar conduct.

The jury’s finding of gross negligence was particularly significant. The jury's finding required the higher “clear and convincing” standard of proof that demonstrated that the defendant's actions reflected a conscious disregard for the safety of workers. Equally important, jurors rejected the defense’s attempt to assign blame to Mr. Loree.

In September 2025, both parties filed a joint motion to abate the appeal after reaching a settlement agreement. The Court of Appeals granted the motion and later, on October 30, 2025, issued an order vacating the trial court’s judgment and remanding the case for entry of judgment consistent with the settlement. The appellate order did not alter the jury’s findings on negligence—it simply reflected the parties’ agreement to finalize the matter privately.

The Main Question Being Considered: Corporate Negligence and Accountability

At its core, The Estate of David Loree v. TNT Crane & Rigging, Inc. asked whether a major industrial employer could be held fully accountable for systemic safety failures that result in loss of life. The jury’s verdict answered that question decisively—yes, when gross negligence is proven, corporations can and should be held responsible.

While the settlement ultimately resolved the case, the message resonated beyond the courtroom: strong corporate safety programs are not optional. They are essential to protecting workers’ lives.

Why Does This Case Matter to California Workers?

Although the case originated in Texas, its lessons are universal. Workers in California (especially those in high-risk industries such as construction, transportation, and manufacturing) face similar dangers when employers cut corners on safety.

California law, through agencies such as Cal/OSHA and the Labor Code, provides powerful protections for employees and their families. However, corporate negligence still leads to preventable deaths and injuries each year. This case highlights how vigilant legal action can expose systemic failures, drive industry reform, and bring a measure of justice to grieving families.

FAQ: The Estate of David Loree v. TNT Crane & Rigging, Inc.

Q: What laws or legal principles were central to the Loree case?

A: The Loree v. TNT lawsuit centered on wrongful death and gross negligence claims. The jury applied the “clear and convincing evidence” standard required to award punitive damages; mirroring the heightened standards for proving egregious misconduct in California's civil lawsuits.

Q: What Are Punitive Damages?

A: Punitive awards are intended to punish particularly reckless or malicious conduct.

Q: Is it significant when punitive damages are awarded in a wrongful death case?

A: When a jury awards punitive damages in a wrongful death case, it indicates that they felt the details of the case warranted a more excessive deterrent; in addition to ordinary compensation.

If you’ve lost a loved one due to corporate negligence or unsafe workplace conditions, the compassionate wrongful death attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP can help you seek justice at offices in Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Riverside, and Chicago. Contact our office to discuss your situation, and learn how to file a wrongful death lawsuit today.

Wrongful Death Lawsuit filed After a Woman is Killed on Santa Monica Beach

After their daughter was killed by an allegedly reckless driver on a Santa Monica beach, Sherese Allen's parents filed a wrongful death lawsuit.

Case: Eugenia Tate and Antron Allen v. The City of Santa Monica, Yuyang Sun, Liang Tang, Jie Ding

Court: Los Angeles Superior Court (California)

Case No.: 25SMCV03861

The Plaintiffs: Tate and Allen v. The City of Santa Monica

The plaintiffs, Eugenia Tate and Antron Allen, are the parents of the late Sherese Allen, who lost her life in a fatal beach accident on October 17, 2024. According to the complaint, Sherese was resting on the sand at Santa Monica Beach when a driver entered the beach area and began recklessly operating a vehicle in circular motions at high speed. The vehicle struck Allen, trapping her underneath and causing fatal injuries. Her parents allege that the City of Santa Monica’s negligence and failure to maintain safe conditions were a direct cause of their daughter’s death.

The Defendants: Tate and Allen v. The City of Santa Monica

The lawsuit names the City of Santa Monica and individuals Yuyang Sun, Liang Tang, and Jie Ding as defendants. The complaint asserts that the driver and associated parties acted negligently, causing Allen’s death, and that the City created and maintained a dangerous condition by failing to prevent vehicles from accessing the beach. According to the lawsuit, the City had control over the beach area and was aware of prior incidents where vehicles had entered and caused injuries or fatalities. Despite this knowledge, the City allegedly failed to install barriers, signage, or enforcement measures to prevent similar tragedies from occurring.

A History of the Case: Tate and Allen v. The City of Santa Monica

The plaintiffs first filed a government claim in March 2025, which is the required preliminary step before suing a public entity in California. After the claim process was concluded, a wrongful death lawsuit was filed in the Los Angeles Superior Court. The complaint seeks damages for wrongful death, negligence, and the creation of dangerous conditions on public property. The plaintiffs seek compensation for loss of companionship, mental anguish, and the emotional devastation of losing their daughter, as well as punitive damages to hold the responsible parties accountable.

The Main Question Being Considered: Tate and Allen v. The City of Santa Monica

The central question before the court is whether the City of Santa Monica bears legal responsibility for failing to safeguard the public by allowing vehicles to access the beach area. The court will examine whether the City’s alleged inaction (despite prior similar incidents) constitutes the creation of a dangerous condition under California Government Code § 835, and whether that negligence directly contributed to Allen’s death.

FAQ: Tate and Allen v. The City of Santa Monica

Q: What happened to Sherese Allen?

A: On October 17, 2024, Sherese Allen was resting on Santa Monica Beach when a vehicle drove onto the sand, and struck her,. The incident allegedly resulted in her death.

Q: Who filed this wrongful death lawsuit?

A: The lawsuit was filed by the parents of the woman who was hit byt he vehicle, Eugenia Tate and Antron Allen.

Q: What are the allegations against the Defendant?

A: The plaintiffs allege that the City failed to prevent vehicles from entering the beach despite knowing it was a recurring danger. By doing so, the plaintiffs argue they created a hazardous condition on public property.

Q: What damages are being sought?

A: The lawsuit seeks compensation for wrongful death, mental anguish, and loss of companionship. The lawsuit also seeks punitive damages.

If you have questions about wrongful death claims, negligence, or public entity liability in California, contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced wrongful death attorneys are ready to help at offices in Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Riverside, and Chicago.