California Freight Sales Class Action Questions Off-the-Clock Work & Missed Breaks
/
In 2025, a class action lawsuit was filed against Sandair Corporation (doing business as California Freight Sales) in the Superior Court of San Joaquin County. The lawsuit alleges that the company failed to pay employees for all hours worked and violated multiple sections of the California Labor Code by requiring off-the-clock work and failing to provide proper meal and rest breaks.
Case: Juan Jimenez Padilla v. Sandair Corporation, dba California Freight Sales
Court: San Joaquin County Superior Court (California)
Case No.: STK-CV-UOE-2025-9283
Plaintiff Filed a Class Action Seeking Unpaid Wages
The plaintiff in the case is Juan Jimenez Padilla. Padilla filed the class action complaint hoping to represent others in a similar situation at the company as they seek to recover unpaid wages and related damages under California’s wage and hour laws. In his complaint, Padilla alleges that he and other similarly situated employees were required to complete work tasks before and afrer rheir shifts and during meal periods - without payment. According to the plaintiffs, the company's pay practices failed to account for all their employees' work hours. As a result of this practice, Padilla claims that the company denied employees legally required overtime pay, minimum wage compensation, and compliant meal periods and rest breaks. The inaccurate pay practices also allegedly resulted in inaccurate wage statements and unpaid wages after a worker leaves their employment.
The Defendant: Padilla v. California Freight Sales
Sandair Corporation, doing business as California Freight Sales, is a freight and logistics company operating in the state of California. The lawsuit alleges that the company exercised control over its employees’ schedules and work duties but failed to compensate them for time spent working off the clock. Specifically, the complaint alleges that California Freight Sales requires employees to complete tasks before clocking in, remain on duty during meal breaks, and perform additional work after hours. The company also allegedly failed to issue accurate itemized wage statements (which are required by California Labor Code Section 226), and did not reimburse employees for necessary work-related expenses.
A History of the Case: Padilla v. California Freight Sales
The case was filed in August 2025 in San Joaquin County Superior Court. It seeks class certification on behalf of all non-exempt employees who worked for California Freight Sales during the relevant statutory period. The lawsuit alleges violations of multiple Labor Code provisions, including those covering minimum wage, overtime, rest and meal breaks, and wage statements. As of this writing, the case remains pending. If class certification is granted, the outcome could affect a significant number of employees across the company’s operations. The plaintiffs are seeking recovery of unpaid wages, statutory penalties, restitution, and attorneys’ fees.
The Main Question Being Considered in the Class Action Case:
The main question before the court is whether California Freight Sales practices violated California labor laws and whether employees were "subject to the control" of the employer during the "unpaid" periods. If so, they are entitled to compensatio for that time under California labor law. The ruling will hinge on evidence showing whether California Freight Sales maintained policies or practices that required off-the-clock work or failed to ensure employees received full, uninterrupted breaks as mandated by law.
Why Does the Case Matter and How Could it Affect California Workers?
If the allegations are proven, it could indicate widespread wage and hour violations or far reaching business practices failing to comply with labor law. If so, workers throughout California's large freight and logistics industry could be affected. The case serves as a reminder that California law protects the right to be paid for every minute worked; including time spent preparing for shifts, closing out duties, or performing work during breaks.
FAQ: Padilla v. California Freight Sales
Q: What does the lawsuit against California Freight Sales claim?
A: The lawsuit claims the company required employees to work off-the-clock before and after shifts and during meal breaks, failing to pay them for all hours worked.
Q: What laws are at issue in this case?
A: The case cites violations of California Labor Code Sections 201, 202, 203, 204, 210, 226, 226.7, 510, 512, 558, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, and 2802 — which govern wage payments, overtime, meal and rest periods, and expense reimbursements.
Q: What will the court decide?
A: The court will determine whether California Freight Sales’ policies resulted in unpaid wages or denied employees legally required meal and rest breaks under California law.
Q: Why is off-the-clock work a violation?
A: Under California law, employees must be compensated for all time they are under the employer’s control, including pre-shift, post-shift, and break-time duties.
Q: Who could be affected by the outcome?
A: If certified as a class action, the case could impact numerous current and former employees of California Freight Sales who worked during the statutory period.
If you have questions about California labor law, filing a California class action, or wage and hour violations, contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to help at offices in Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Riverside, and Chicago.
