California Wage and Hour Lawsuit: CAFA Amount in Controversy Requirement

In recent news, Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s decision that defendant, Roadrunner, failed to meet the burden to establish the required $5 million minimum for the CAFA amount in controversy requirement and remanded to district court for further proceedings.

The Case: Jauregui v. Roadrunner Transportation Services, Inc.

The Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

The Case No.: 22-55058

The Plaintiff: Jauregui v. Roadrunner Transportation Services, Inc.

The plaintiff in the case, Griselda Jauregui, filed a putative class action against Roadrunner Transportation Services on behalf of all Roadrunner and former California hourly workers. The plaintiff alleged violations of California labor law, primarily wage and hour violations.

The Defendant: Jauregui v. Roadrunner Transportation Services, Inc.

When the Defendant, Roadrunner, removed the case to federal court, invoking jurisdiction under CAFA, the plaintiff responded with a motion to remand for lack of jurisdiction. The district court found that Roadrunner failed to meet its burden to establish the requisite $5 million minimum for the amount in controversy, and remanded the matter to state court.

The Case Continues: Jauregui v. Roadrunner Transportation Services, Inc.

Roadrunner relied heavily on their senior payroll lead’s conclusion that company payroll data and the plaintiff’s allegations held the amount in controversy to be in excess of $14.7 million. Before granting the motion to remand, the district court independently evaluated Roadrunner’s calculations for each of the seven claims/alleged violations. The district court found that Roadrunner sufficiently demonstrated the claimed amount for 2 of the seven claims, but the district court disagreed with the defendant’s calculations for the other 5 claims, and assigned each of these 5 claims with a value of $0. The Ninth Circuit court reversed the district court’s decision to remand based on what they identified as two primary errors: putting a “thumb on the scale” against removal, and assigning a $0 value to claims because they disagreed with one or more assumptions involved in the defendant’s estimates. The Ninth Circuit also held that nothing in CAFA or case law compels this type of drastic response when a district court disagrees with a single assumption underlying a claim valuation. According to the panel, Roadrunner met the CAFA amount in controversy requirements. If the lowest hourly wage rate identified by the district court is used the minimum wage claim is reasonably valued at $4.5 million. The two other claims accepted by the district court were valued at $2.1 million. These two claims’ values combined is more than enough to establish jurisdiction under CAFA without even considering the valuation of the additional claims that the district court valued at $0. Based on this, the panel remanded the matter to district court for additional proceedings.

If you have questions about California employment law or if you need to discuss wage and hour violations, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Classic VMS, Inc. and Collision Pro’s Inc. Face Allegations of Failing to Pay All Wages

In recent news, Classic VMS, Inc. and Collision Pro’s Inc. face a class action alleging a failure to pay all wages.

The Case: Chamberlan vs. Classic VMS, Inc. and Collision Pro’s Inc.

The Court: Yolo County Superior Court of the State of California

The Case No.: 22PSCV00242

The Plaintiff: Chamberlan vs. Classic VMS, Inc. and Collision Pro’s Inc.

According to the plaintiff in the case, Chamberlain, the defendant allegedly violated California Labor Code by failing to pay minimum wage, failing to pay overtime wages, failed to provide required meal breaks and rest periods, failed to provide accurate itemized wage statements for employees, failed to provide wages when due, and failed to reimburse employees for required business expenses (see California Labor Code Sections §§ 201, 202, 203, 204, 221, 226, 226.7, 246, 510, 512, 558, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, and 2802 for more info).

The Defendant: Chamberlan vs. Classic VMS, Inc. and Collision Pro’s Inc.

The defendant in the case is Classic VMS, Inc. and Collision Pro’s Inc. The company operates and conducts business in the state of California, Yolo County. Classic VMS, Inc. and Collision Pro’s Inc were joint employers of Chamberlan according to contracts signed by parties involved. As such, the parties are jointly responsible for any allegations.

More Details of the Case: Chamberlan vs. Classic VMS, Inc. and Collision Pro’s Inc.

Due to rigorous work schedules, Classic VMS and Collision Pro's employees allegedly couldn’t take off duty meal breaks and were not fully relieved of duty during their “off duty” meal periods. The Chamberlan vs. Classic VMS, Inc. and Collision Pro’s Inc. lawsuit alleges employees were sometimes interrupted during their off-duty meal breaks and required to complete tasks for their employer. Allegations indicate that employees were required to work over 5 hours without an off-duty meal break (as is required by law). Additionally, allegations indicate that when employees worked ten hours of work their employer did not provide them with the second off-duty meal period required by law. The Defendants’ policy allegedly kept employees on-call and on-duty during their off-duty breaks. The policy resulted in employees regularly forfeiting meal breaks without receiving compensation as required by law. Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants’ strict corporate policy and practice caused them to regularly forfeit meal breaks with no additional compensation. The class-action lawsuit, Chamberlan vs. Classic VMS, Inc. and Collision Pro’s Inc., is currently pending in the Yolo County Superior Court of the State of California.

If you have questions about California employment law or need to discuss how to file a California wage and hour 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 located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, and Riverside.

Metro Air Service Inc. Allegedly Failed to Pay Sick Pay Wages

A recent lawsuit alleges that Metro Air Service Inc. failed to pay sick pay wages.

The Case: Gomez v. Metro Airservice Inc.

The Court: Los Angeles County Superior Court of the State of California

The Case No.: 22STCV14964

The Plaintiff: Gomez v. Metro Airservice Inc.

The plaintiff in the case alleges multiple labor code violations. The plaintiff in the suit was employed by Metro Airservice Inc. in California from April 15, 2021 to May 13, 2021. At all times during his employment, the plaintiff was classified as a non-exempt employee, paid on an hourly basis, and entitled to the legally required meal and rest periods and payment of minimum and overtime wages due time employees worked.

The Defendant: Gomez v. Metro Airservice Inc.

The defendant in the case, Metro Airservice Inc., faces allegations of labor law violations. Metro Airservice Inc. is a corporation that conducts substantial business in the state of California as an air services provider.

Case Details: Gomez v. Metro Airservice Inc.

The Gomez v. Metro Airservice Inc. case alleges that Metro Service Inc. failed to pay minimum wages, failed to pay overtime pay, failed to provide legally required meal breaks and rest periods, failed to provide accurate itemized wage statements, failed to reimburse employees for required expenses, failed to provide employees with wages when due, and failed to pay employees sick page wages (under applicable Labor Code sections §§ 201, 202, 203, 204, 226, 226.7, 233, 246, 510, 512, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, 2802 and the applicable Wage Order(s)). The allegations give rise to civil penalties. In addition, the lawsuit alleges that Metro Airservice Inc. underpaid sick pay wages.

If you have questions about California employment law or need to file a California class-action 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 located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Titan Workforce Faces Class Action Wage and Hour Lawsuit

Titan Workforce faces allegations of Labor Code violations in a recent California wage and hour lawsuit.

The Case: Rodriguez v. Titan Workforce

The Court: San Joaquin Superior Court

The Case No.: STK-CV-UOE-2022-3036

Plaintiff in the Case: Rodriguez v. Titan Workforce

In Rodriguez v. Titan Workforce, the plaintiff filed a class-action lawsuit alleging the defendant failed to comply with employment laws requiring that they provide employees with meal breaks and rest periods.

Defendant in the Case: Rodriguez v. Titan Workforce

According to the class-action lawsuit, the defendant, Titan Workforce, violated California Labor Code referencing paying minimum wage, paying overtime wages, providing employees with meal breaks and rest periods, providing accurate itemized wage statements to employees, providing employees with wages when they are due, and reimbursing employees for business expenses. (See California Labor Code Sections §§ 201, 202, 203, 204, 226, 226.7, 246, 510, 512, 558, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, and 2802).

The Case: Rodriguez v. Titan Workforce

According to the wage and hour class action lawsuit, Titan Workforce allegedly violated the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) which may result in civil penalties. PAGA allows aggrieved employees to file suit to pursue civil penalties on behalf of themselves, as well as other employees and the State of California due to California Labor Code Violations. For legal purposes, aggrieved employee means any person employed by the alleged violator and against whom one or more of the alleged violations was committed." (See California Labor Code Section 2699(c) for more info). Under PAGA, the aggrieved employee is “deputized” as a private attorney to enforce labor code.

If you have questions about how to file an overtime class action or PAGA lawsuit, please contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Minor League Baseball Players Reach Settlement in Wage and Hour Lawsuit

In recent news, the minor league players reached a settlement agreement in the lawsuit alleging Major League Baseball teams violated minimum wage laws.

The Case: Senne, et al. v. Office of the Commissioner of Baseball, et al.

The Court: U.S. District Court, Northern District of California

The Case No.: 3:14-cv-00608-JCS

The Plaintiff: Senne, et al. v. Office of the Commissioner of Baseball, et al.

The plaintiff, first baseman/outfielder Aaron Senne, was a 10th round pick of the Marlins in 2009. In 2013, Senne retired. Senne along with two other retired players who were lower-round selections, Liberto (Kansas City infielder), and Odle (San Francisco pitcher), filed suit alleging the teams violated the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and state minimum wage and overtime laws for a workweek estimated at around 50 to 60 hours.

Postponing the Hearing: Senne, et al. v. Office of the Commissioner of Baseball, et al.

A trial for the case was scheduled for June 1 in the U.S. District Court in San Francisco. However, lawyers for both sides filed a letter asking the Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero to postpone. The letter informed the court that the parties reached a settlement and agreed upon a confidential memorandum of understanding. At the time the letter was submitted to the court, the settlement documents were still being prepared.

The Case: Senne, et al. v. Office of the Commissioner of Baseball, et al.

While terms of the settlement were not yet filed with the court, and details were not offered, anonymous sources involved in the case indicated that the parties had recently discussed a settlement around $200 million.

Issues Being Considered: Senne, et al. v. Office of the Commissioner of Baseball, et al.

After years of arguing about whether the case should be given class-action status, it was sent back to the District Court by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2019. In March, the judge offered a pretrial ruling stating that the minor league players are year-round employees who work during training time, and he found that MLB violated Arizona’s state minimum wage law leaving them liable for triple damages. The judge also ruled that MLB failed to comply with California wage statement requirements and noted penalty awards of $1,882,650. The judge also ruled that MLB is a joint employer with minor league teams for players who “work” during spring training and minor league players should be paid for travel time to games in the California League and travel to practice in Arizona and Florida.

If you have questions about inaccurate overtime pay calculations, minimum wage violations, or other employment law violations, please contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Our experienced California employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Kronos Hack Leaves PepsiCo Vulnerable to Wage and Hour Claims

The recent Kronos hack seems to have left PepsiCo in a tough spot, facing wage and hour claims after employees filed a California wage and hour lawsuit.

The Case: Madriz v. PepsiCo, Inc., Naked Juice Co., and Tropicana Products, Inc.

The Court: Central District of California

The Case No.: 5:22-cv-00549

The Plaintiff: Madriz v. PepsiCo, Inc., Naked Juice Co., and Tropicana Products, Inc.

The plaintiff in the case, two PepsiCo workers, filed suit alleging the company failed to properly keep track of overtime hours their employees worked and provide overtime pay at accurate overtime rates after Kronos, an HR technology provider, was hacked in 2021. The plaintiffs seek class certification, awards of unpaid wages, liquidated damages, penalty damages, restitution, pre-, and post-judgment interest, attorney’s fees and costs, etc.

The Defendant: Madriz v. PepsiCo, Inc., Naked Juice Co., and Tropicana Products, Inc.

Kronos is one of the world’s largest human resources companies that work with their clients (other companies) to manage timekeeping and payroll information. In December 2021, Kronos was hacked. As a result, PepsiCo employees allegedly were not paid a full overtime premium for overtime hours worked. Instead, according to the complaint, PepsiCo issued paychecks based on scheduled hours or duplicated paychecks from pay periods before the Kronos cyber attack. In addition, plaintiffs claim PepsiCo paid based on estimates of time or pay, arbitrary calculations, or considerations other than the hours employees worked and their agreed upon pay rate. As a result, many employees allegedly received pay for fewer hours than they worked and at a lower wage.

The Case: Madriz v. PepsiCo, Inc., Naked Juice Co., and Tropicana Products, Inc.

Plaintiffs claim PepsiCo’s behavior was negligent and that the company should have immediately put various methods in place to keep track of employee hours and accurately calculate employee wages. Instead, plaintiffs argue the company chose not to. Based on this decision, the plaintiffs argue that the defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and California wage laws such as the California Labor Code, Private Attorneys General Act, and Unfair Competition Law.

If you have questions about California employment law or need to file a wage and hour 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 located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Matco Ends Wage Theft Class Action with $15.8M Settlement

Matco Tools Corp., a tool company, recently agreed to pay their franchisees $15.8 million to resolve a class action alleging the corporation misclassified them as independent contractors to avoid paying overtime and other benefits.

The Case: Fleming v. Matco Tools Corporation et al.

The Court: U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California

The Case No.: 3:19-cv-00463

Plaintiffs in the Case: Fleming v. Matco Tools Corporation et al.

The specified settlement between the two parties in Fleming v. Matco Tools Corporation et al. stemmed from Matco franchisee John Fleming suing the Ohio-based mechanic tools manufacturer (and its parent company, Fortive Corp) in Jan. 2019. Fleming claimed he and other franchisees were misclassified as independent contractors. Fleming was a Matco franchise owner from 2012 to 2018. The defendant argued the case should be dismissed as Fleming was not a franchise owner at the time of the filing, but the court disagreed and certified the class action. The allegations included in the complaint will be resolved by the proposed settlement, which will see plaintiffs (the affected franchisees) each receiving over $40,000 in cash/debt relief.

Defendant in the Case: Fleming v. Matco Tools Corporation et al.

Matco Tools Corp. has agreed to a $15.8 million settlement with franchisees. The settlement would resolve claims that the company misclassified their franchisees as independent contractors to skimp on costs associated with fulfilling California labor law benefits requirements like overtime, meal and rest breaks, accurate wage statements, and timely payment of wages upon termination.

The Case: Fleming v. Matco Tools Corporation et al.

The franchisees claimed that the tools company wrongly classified them as independent contractors when they were employees, denying them the right to overtime pay and other benefits. After a years-long battle, the parties agreed to a settlement with the plaintiffs stating that going to trial could be a risk, so settling before trial was their preferred option. Under the settlement terms, Matco will pay the class of about 273 franchisees $13.5 million and relieve more than $2.3 million worth of debt.

If you have questions about California labor law violations or how to file an overtime class action, please contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.