Mainspring Energy, Inc. Employees Make California Labor Law Violation Allegations

According to a recently filed California labor law complaint, Mainspring Energy, Inc. allegedly violated labor law by failing to reimburse employees for the cost of using their cell phones to perform their job duties.

The Case: Edward Young v. Mainspring Energy, Inc.

The Court: Superior Court of the State of California, San Mateo County

The Case No.:24-CIV-01894

The Plaintiff: Edward Young v. Mainspring Energy, Inc.

The plaintiff in the case, Edward Young, filed a class action complaint alleging that Mainspring Energy, Inc. violated multiple California Labor Codes. These violations include failing to pay minimum and overtime wages, not providing legally mandated meal and rest periods, and not reimbursing employees for necessary business expenses like using personal cellular phones for work. Young's case highlights systemic issues within Mainspring Energy concerning the treatment of employees and adherence to state labor laws, seeking civil penalties for these infractions.

The Defendant: Edward Young v. Mainspring Energy, Inc.

The defendant, Mainspring Energy, Inc., is a corporation doing business in California providing clean energy. The plaintiff, Edward Young, was hired as a non-exempt hourly employee for Mainspring Energy, Inc. in September 2021.

The Case: Edward Young v. Mainspring Energy, Inc.

While employed at Mainspring Energy, Inc., Young, and other similarly situated employees were allegedly required to use their cell phones to complete their job duties. Since California Labor Code 2802 expressly states that "an employer shall indemnify his or her employee for all necessary expenditures or losses incurred by the employee in direct consequence of the discharge of his or her duties..." the plaintiff argues they are violating labor law. Edward Young v. Mainspring Energy, Inc., a class action lawsuit, is currently pending in the San Mateo County Superior Court of the State of California.

If you believe you may be a potential plaintiff in a similar case or have questions about filing an employment law lawsuit, please don't hesitate to get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Their experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago, empowering you to take action.

Will Walmart Settle their Unpaid Overtime Suit with California Workers?

In recent news, a California judge considered a revamped $2.25 million unpaid overtime settlement.

The Case: Juan Garcia v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., et al.

The Court: Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino

The Case No.: 5:16-cv-01645-BRO-RAO

The Plaintiff: Juan Garcia v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., et al.

The plaintiff in the case, Juan Garcia, initially filed a proposed class action complaint against Wal-Mart Stores in May 2016, alleging that the company did not provide a second meal break for shifts over 10 hours as required by labor law. Garcia also claimed he did not voluntarily waive his missed meal breaks and that Walmart did not obtain Garcia’s signature on any lawful meal break waivers. According to Garcia, a documented policy denied Walmart Logistics employees their second meal period.

The Defendant: Juan Garcia v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., et al.

The defendant in the case, Walmart Stores, holds the title of the largest retailer globally, with a staggering valuation of $218 billion. This retail giant operates 3,250 stores across the U.S. and employs approximately 1 million individuals. Currently, in 2024, about 39 class-action lawsuits are active against Walmart in 30 states, ranging from California to New York. These lawsuits collectively involve several hundred thousand employees pursuing claims for tens of millions of dollars in unpaid wages. Previously, Walmart resolved two comparable cases regarding overtime payments in Colorado and New Mexico.

The Case: Juan Garcia v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., et al.

In the motion for preliminary approval, over 1700 Walmart workers hoped for a resolution. The first motion to approve the settlement in September was denied, with the court pointing out deficiencies. The first allocation method did not fairly compensate the employees. The skewed compensation structure favored part-timers because it relied on weeks worked instead of hours worked. In the recent motion for preliminary approval, Walmart workers said they corrected the allocation method to address the deficiency.

If you have questions about how to file an overtime lawsuit, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced California employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Did GT Independence Services, LLC Violate Labor Law?

In recent news, GT Independence Services, LLC has faced allegations that it violated labor law by failing to reimburse its employees.

The Case: Annabelle Cruz v. GT Independence Services, LLC

The Court: San Joaquin County Superior Court of the State of California

The Case No.: 37-2024-00014402-CU-OE-CT

The Plaintiff: Annabelle Cruz v. GT Independence Services, LLC

The plaintiff in the case, Annabelle Cruz, filed a class action complaint alleging that GT Independence Services, LLC violated the California Labor Code. Annabelle Cruz is the plaintiff in a lawsuit against GT Independence Services, LLC, where it is alleged that employees were not given ten-minute rest periods for every four hours worked, as required. The lawsuit also claims that employees, including Cruz, were compelled to work shifts longer than five hours without the mandated meal breaks, violating company policy without additional compensation. Furthermore, Cruz and other class members were reportedly not reimbursed for necessary business expenses, such as using personal cellular phones for work-related activities, contrary to California Labor Code 2802.

According to the lawsuit filed, GT Independence Services, LLC employees were, allegedly, from time to time, unable to work in excess of four (4) hours without being provided ten (10) minute rest periods. Additionally, employees were allegedly required from time to time to perform work as ordered by the company for more than five (5) hours during some shifts without receiving a meal break. As a result, employees forfeited meal breaks without additional compensation, according to Defendant's corporate policy and practice.

GT Independence Services, LLC also allegedly failed to reimburse employees for required business expenses. California Labor Code 2802 states that "an employer shall indemnify his or her employee for all necessary expenditures or losses incurred by the employee in direct consequence of the discharge of his or her duties..." During employment, Plaintiff and other California Class Members were allegedly required to use their cellular phones as a result of, and in furtherance of, their job duties.

The Defendant: Annabelle Cruz v. GT Independence Services, LLC

The defendant in the case, GT Independence Services, LLC, specializes in facilitating self-directed care for individuals with disabilities, enabling them to manage their own care and hire support staff of their choosing. As an employer, GT Independence focuses on providing supportive work environments but has faced allegations regarding labor practices, including issues with rest periods and reimbursement policies.

The Case: Annabelle Cruz v. GT Independence Services, LLC

The case Annabelle Cruz v. GT Independence Services, LLC is currently pending in the Santa Clara County Superior Court of the State of California.

If you have questions about filing an employment law lawsuit, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Did Disney Underpay Maintenance Workers at California’s Disneyland Hotel?

In recent news, Disney faces a lawsuit alleging that they underpaid maintenance workers at their Disneyland Hotel just outside the California theme park.

The Case: Torres v. Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US Inc

The Court: California Superior Court, Orange County

The Case No.: case number not available

The Plaintiffs: Torres v. Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US Inc

The plaintiff in the case, Charlie Torres, claims that Disney failed to provide the maintenance workers for the Disneyland Hotel with accurate overtime pay rates and required that workers pay for their own hand tools and equipment while on the job. Maintenance workers also allege they weren’t provided with the one-hour break period required for shifts lasting over four hours and were deprived of the “meal break premiums” they were entitled to due to the missed breaks. Additionally, the plaintiffs claim Disney failed to provide the required accurate, itemized wage statements. Charlie Torres worked at Disneyland Hotel as an assistant maintenance engineer. He was hired in February 2022. Torres still works at the hotel.

The Defendant: Torres v. Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US Inc

The defendant in the case, Disney, owns the Disneyland Hotel, the 970-room, four-star hotel where Torres works as an assistant maintenance engineer. The defendant faces multiple allegations of employment law violations.

The Case: Charlie Torres v. Disney Parks and Resorts US, Inc.

Under the California Wage Orders, employees who are required to bring their own tools for work must be paid double the minimum wage. The lawsuit alleges that Disney failed to pay maintenance workers at the Disneyland Hotel the overtime wages they were due. Torres, the plaintiff, is seeking at least $1 million in back pay and loss of benefits for the four years prior to the filing date. He also demands a jury trial to settle the claims. The complaint was filed on March 5, 2024. Torres aims to represent a group of more than 115 current and former workers at the Disneyland Hotel if the suit is granted class-action status.

If you have questions about filing a California overtime lawsuit, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw L.L.P. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Family Files Wrongful Death Lawsuit After Orange County Apartment Explosion

In recent news, Mikeanesha Moore was injured during an Orange County apartment explosion on March 1, 2024, and later died on March 9, 2024. Her family filed a wrongful death lawsuit.

The Case: Fondia v. Woodhill, Highmark Residential, and Lake Apopka Natural Gas

The Court: 9th Judicial Circuit Court Orange County, Florida

The Case No.: 48-2024-CA-002046

The Plaintiff: Fondia v. Woodhill, Highmark Residential, and Lake Apopka Natural Gas

The plaintiff in the case, the family of Mikeanesha Moore, filed a wrongful death lawsuit. According to the lawsuit, Moor died about a week after her Orange County apartment exploded. The family is suing the apartment property’s owner and manager, as well as the property’s gas service provider, for alleged wrongful death. According to Moore’s family, the explosion left her critically injured and led to her death on March 9. The explosion at Moore’s recently leased apartment at the Woodhill Apartments allegedly left her with third- and fourth-degree burns on more than 40% of her body.

The Defendant: Fondia v. Woodhill, Highmark Residential, and Lake Apopka Natural Gas

The defendants in the case are SPT Wah Woodhill LLC, Highmark Residential LLC, and the Lake Apopka Natural Gas District, identified in the lawsuit as the Woodhill Apartment complex’s owner, managing organization, and gas services provider. According to the lawsuit, there were years of complaints about the smell of leaking gas in the building. Orange County fire crews also allegedly identified an unplugged natural gas line in Moore’s laundry room as the source of leaked natural gas and the cause of the explosion. However, investigators are yet to confirm if the unplugged line was the cause of the March 1, 2024 explosion. Also mentioned in the lawsuit are alleged years of complaints regarding the smell of leaking gas in the 600 apartment complex building, where Moore had signed a lease about two weeks prior.

The Case: Fondia v. Woodhill, Highmark Residential, and Lake Apopka Natural Gas

The wrongful death lawsuit (filed on April 2, amending a March 8 complaint) seeks damages in the loss of earnings from the day Moore was injured to the date of her death, as well as the loss of income to her family due to her death. The family also seeks payment of all medical and funeral expenses. The plaintiffs seek a jury trial.

If you have questions about filing a California wrongful termination lawsuit, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced wrongful death attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Did Lax Security Protocols Result in the Death of Concert Attendees?

In recent news, two nurses attending an EDM festival were allegedly killed by another concert attendee, even though security measures in place should have prohibited him from having a weapon on site.

The Case: Estate of Brady Escamilla Obo et al. VS Live Nation Entertainment Inc. et al.

The Court: Superior Court of Washington, County of King

The Case No.: 24-2-07949-1 KNT

The Plaintiff: Estate of Brady Escamilla Obo et al. VS Live Nation

The plaintiffs in the case, the Estate of Brady Escamilla Obo et al., are the parents and siblings of Brandy Escamilla and Josilyn Ruiz. The two Seattle nurses were killed on June 17, 2023, while attending a Live Nation festival. The family filed a wrongful death lawsuit seeking to hold Live Nation (and other allegedly responsible entities) accountable for alleged deficient conduct and lax security protocols.

The Defendant: Estate of Brady Escamilla Obo et al. VS Live Nation Entertainment Inc. et al.

The defendant in the case, Live Nation, is a subsidiary of Insomniac Holdings and several security companies that face a wrongful death lawsuit connected to an incident at the 2023 Beyond Wonderland at The Gorge EDM festival. According to the lawsuit, alleged deficient conduct and lax security protocols on the part of the defendant are responsible for the armed concertgoer, James M. Kelly, who shot the two nurses during the EDM event.

The Case: Estate of Brady Escamilla Obo et al. VS Live Nation Entertainment Inc. et al.

In the case Estate of Brady Escamilla Obo et al. VS Live Nation Entertainment Inc. et al., the shooter, Kelly, ingested hallucinogenic mushrooms at the concert, went to his vehicle (which was parked at The Gorge Campground) to retrieve a handgun and ammunition, and proceeded to open fire. Several people were injured, and both Brandy and Josilyn (who were walking nearby) were killed. The wrongful death complaint alleged that Live Nation and The Gorge have strict policies that prohibit the possession of drugs and weapons on the premises and in the campgrounds.

If you have questions about filing a California wrongful death lawsuit, don't hesitate to contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced wrongful death attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Do Distributors of Tastykake & Wonderbread Qualify for an Exemption?

The high court recently decided that distributors of baked goods like Tastykake and Wonderbread to various retailers could qualify for an exemption Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). An exemption would allow them to proceed with their wage and hour action.

The Case: Bissonette v. LePage Bakeries Park St. LLC

The Court: U.S. Supreme Court

The Case No.: 23-51

The Plaintiff: Bissonette v. LePage Bakeries Park St. LLC

The plaintiffs in the case, distributors of products made by Flower Foods, argued that they were misclassified as independent contractors and denied overtime pay and other paycheck protections they should have received if the company had appropriately classified them as employees.

The Defendant: Bissonette v. LePage Bakeries Park St. LLC

The defendant in the case, LePage Bakeries Park St. LLC, argued that the FAA required that the suit be resolved out of court due to an arbitration clause in the distributors’ contract. However, the plaintiffs counter-argued that they were exempt from the act as workers engaged in interstate commerce (exemption found in Section 1 of the FAA exempts “workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce”).

The Case: Bissonette v. LePage Bakeries Park St. LLC

The question before the high court was whether or not the exemption applied to bakery workers or if it was only applicable to workers in the transportation industry. While a May 2022 ruling ruled that workers weren’t exempt because they primarily made money by selling baked goods, Judge Roberts noted the court’s last decision on a Section 1 exemption, Southwest Airlines Co. v. Saxon. In Southwest Airlines Co. v. Saxon, the court decided that the exemption application depends on a worker’s attributes - not those of the business they work for or the industry they work in. The judge pointed out that the language used in the exemption referenced the “worker” being “engaged” in commerce, which focuses on the performance of work rather than the industry of the company or employer.

If you have questions about how to file a California misclassification lawsuit, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to help you in various law firm offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.