Syufy Enterprises and Tomatina Restaurants Face Allegations they Failed to Pay Workers

In recent news, Syufy Enterprises and Tomatina Restaurants face allegations that they violated California Labor Code by failing to pay their employees.

The Case: Gina Ricci v. Tomatina Restaurants and Syufy Enterprises

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

The Case No.: 22-CIV-04939

The Plaintiff: Gina Ricci v. Tomatina Restaurants and Syufy Enterprises

The plaintiff in the case, Gina Ricci, filed a class action complaint alleging multiple California employment law violations. The defendant employed Ricci from February 2020 through July 2021. As a non-exempt, hourly employee, Ricci was entitled to the protections provided by federal and state employment law for employees, including required meal and rest periods, minimum wage, and overtime wages. Ricci filed the class action seeking compensation for losses incurred due to the defendant's alleged employment law violations for herself and on behalf of eligible class members.

The Defendant: Gina Ricci v. Tomatina Restaurants and Syufy Enterprises

Tomatina Restaurants and Syufy Enterprises are defined as joint employers of the plaintiff according to the arguments presented in the complaint. Tomatina Restaurants are a popular Italian dining location with multiple locations in California.

The Case: Gina Ricci v. Tomatina Restaurants and Syufy Enterprises

According to Ricci, the plaintiff in the California class action, the staff's rigorous work schedule inhibited them from taking off-duty meal breaks, they were not fully relieved of duty for their required meal periods, and from time to time, they were interrupted during their off-duty meal periods to fulfill job duties "off the clock" for Tomatina restaurants and Syufy Enterprises. According to the plaintiff, employees were required to work shifts longer than five hours without receiving off-duty meal breaks, and the defendant failed to with second off-duty meal breaks when they worked more than ten hours in one workday. The company allegedly required that their employees stay on call (and essentially on duty) during what was supposed to be "off duty" meal periods. The standard business practice caused employees to forfeit meal breaks, and the company did not provide additional compensation.

If you have questions about filing a California class action overtime lawsuit, don't hesitate to contact 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.

Freenome Holdings, Inc. Faces PAGA-Only Action, Alleging California Labor Code Violations

In recent news, Freenome Holdings, Inc. faces a PAGA-Only action alleging multiple California labor code violations.

The Case: Daniel De La Torre v. Freenome Holdings, Inc.

The Court: San Francisco County Superior Court

The Case No.: CGC-22-603540

The Plaintiff: Daniel De La Torre v. Freenome Holdings, Inc.

The plaintiff in the case, Daniel De La Torre, as an “aggrieved employee,” acted as a private attorney general (under the Labor Code Private Attorney General Act of 2004, § 2699, et seq. (“PAGA”) to file suit against Freenome Holdings. The PAGA-only action seeks to obtain PAGA civil penalties for himself and other aggrieved employees in similar situations with the company. California’s PAGA permits an individual to bring an action on behalf of himself and on behalf of others for PAGA penalties only; this is the precise and sole nature of this action.

The Defendant: Daniel De La Torre v. Freenome Holdings, Inc.

The defendant in the case, Freenome Holdings, Inc., is a corporation that provides clinical research services, as well as the development and creation of screening, diagnosis, and treatment of age-associated clinical conditions.

The Case: Daniel De La Torre v. Freenome Holdings, Inc.

Freenome Holdings, Inc. employed Torre from September 2021 through August 2022. During his time at the company, Torre was classified as a non-exempt employee and earned wages on an hourly basis. As such, Torre was entitled to the legally required meal and rest periods and payment of minimum and overtime wages due according to employment law. According to the PAGA-only action, the defendant failed to pay the plaintiff (and other similarly aggrieved employees that qualify under the class definition) wages due, engaged in practices that required employees to complete “off the clock” work, failed to provide mandatory off-duty meal breaks, required mandatory temperature checks and symptom questionnaires for COVID-19 screening before employees could clock in for shifts, engaged in an established company policy that rounded employee hours rather than providing payment for the actual hours employees worked, etc.

If you have questions about how to file a California PAGA-only action, 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.

Wingstop Faces Class Action Allegations of Minimum Wage and Overtime Pay Violations

In recent news, Wingstop faces allegations of California wage and hour and overtime pay violations.

The Case: Jamal Shabazz v. Mann & Company, Inc.

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

The Case No.: 22CV02669

The Plaintiff: Jamal Shabazz v. Mann & Company, Inc.

The plaintiff in the case, Jamal Shabazz, worked at one of the Wingstop franchise locations owned by the defendant from February 2022 to March 2022 as a non-exempt, hourly employee. As a worker at a Wingstop franchise owned by the defendant, the plaintiff claims employees could not take off-duty meal breaks and that the company did not entirely remove them from responsibility for job duties during their off-duty meal periods. Shabazz alleges that employees on their off-duty meal breaks were regularly interrupted to perform work duties for the company. Employees were also required to work shifts longer than 5 hours without being provided an off-duty meal break and weren’t provided a second meal break period if they worked shifts longer than 10 hours. According to the lawsuit, employees were expected to be on call and available even when they were “off duty” for meal breaks. This business practice left employees forfeiting their meal breaks without additional compensation.

The Defendant: Jamal Shabazz v. Mann & Company, Inc.

The defendant in the case, Mann & Company, Inc., owns, operates, and manages a chain of Wingstop franchised restaurants in California, including in the county of Butte, where Jamal Shabazz, the plaintiff, worked.

Details of the Case: Jamal Shabazz v. Mann & Company, Inc.

As a non-exempt, hourly employee, Jamal Shabazz was entitled to legally required meal and rest periods and payment of minimum and overtime wages due for all hours worked. According to the plaintiff’s allegations, the defendant engaged in several labor law violations: failure to pay minimum wage, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide required meal breaks and rest periods, failure to provide employees with accurate itemized wage statements, and failure to issue employees their wages when they are due. These alleged activities would constitute violations of several California Labor Codes, including Sections §§ 201, 202, 203, 204, 210, 226.7, 510, 512, 558, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, and 1198. The case, Jamal Shabazz v. Mann & Company, Inc. dba Wingstop, is currently pending in the Butte County Superior Court of the State of California.

If you have questions about 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 in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Dreamfields Faces a California Wage and Hour Class Action Lawsuit

Allegations in a California wage and hour class action lawsuit filed on September 9, 2022, accuse Dreamfields Brands, Inc., Dreamfields California, LLC, and Dreamfields Security, Inc. of California Labor Code violations when they allegedly failed to pay their workers for all of the time worked.

The Case: Adriana Marquez v. Dreamfields Brands, Inc., Dreamfields California LLC, Dreamfields Security, Inc.

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

The Case No.: CVRI2203871

The Plaintiff: Adriana Marquez v. Dreamfields Brands, Inc., Dreamfields California LLC, Dreamfields Security, Inc.

The plaintiff in the case, Adriana Marquez, was employed by the defendant from May 2021 through November 2021 as a non-exempt hourly employee at Dreamfields in Riverside. Marquez filed a class action wage and hour lawsuit alleging that the defendant, her joint employer, violated labor law when they failed to provide meal and rest breaks.

The Defendant: Adriana Marquez v. Dreamfields Brands, Inc., Dreamfields California LLC, Dreamfields Security, Inc.

The defendant in the case, Dreamfields Brands, Inc., Dreamfields California LLC, and Dreamfields Security, Inc., produce, harvest, and retail cannabis products throughout California, including Riverside. According to the lawsuit, the defendant employed the plaintiff at their Riverside, California location.

The Allegations: Adriana Marquez v. Dreamfields Brands, Inc., Dreamfields California LLC, Dreamfields Security, Inc.

The allegations in the class action lawsuit violate numerous sections of the California Labor Code, including California Labor Code Sections §§ 201, 202, 203, 204, 210, 226.7, 246, 510, 512, 558, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198 and 2802. Consider the allegations listed in the class action:

• Failure to pay minimum wages

• Failure to pay overtime wages

• Failure to provide mandatory meal breaks and rest periods

• Failure to reimburse workers for required business expenses

• Failure to provide wages when due

• Failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements

The Case: Adriana Marquez v. Dreamfields Brands, Inc., Dreamfields California LLC, Dreamfields Security, Inc.

The case, Adriana Marquez v. Dreamfields Brands, Inc., Dreamfields California LLC, and Dreamfields Security, Inc., is currently pending in the Riverside County Superior Court of the State of California.

If you have questions about how to file a California overtime 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.

Employees Claim Wax Center Partners Holdco LLC Violated Employment Law

A class action lawsuit alleges Wax Center Partners Holdco LLC failed to provide their employees with required meal breaks and rest periods. Based on the missed meal breaks and rest periods, the employer also failed to provide employees with the total wages due, violating labor law.

The Case: Jileea Jordan v. Wax Center Partners Intermediate Holdco LLC

The Court: Alameda Superior Court of the State of California

The Case No.: 22CV018596

The Plaintiff: Jileea Jordan v. Wax Center Partners Intermediate Holdco LLC

The plaintiff in the case, Jileea Jordan, was employed by the defendant in California from February 18th,2022 to April 26th, 2022. At all times during her employment, she was classified as a non-exempt employee and paid hourly wages, which entitled her to the legally required meal breaks and rest periods, payment of minimum wage, overtime pay for overtime hours worked, accurate wage statements, etc.

The Defendant: Jileea Jordan v. Wax Center Partners Intermediate Holdco LLC

The defendant in the case, Wax Center Partners Intermediate Holdco LLC, offers waxing services and other skin care solutions from certified wax specialists. According to the plaintiff in the case, the defendant regularly required employees to work during their off-duty meal breaks, stay available during their rest periods, and complete other “off the clock” work like mandatory drug testing, Covid-19 testing, temperature checks, etc. as a condition of employment.

The Case: Jileea Jordan v. Wax Center Partners Intermediate Holdco LLC

According to the class action wage and hour lawsuit, Wax Center Partners Holdco LLC allegedly failed to fully relieve employees for their legally required meal breaks and rest periods. Plaintiff also claims that employees were required to work over four hours without a 10-minute rest period. In addition to violating meal and rest period laws, minimum wage, and overtime pay laws, Defendant allegedly failed to provide their employees with complete, accurate, and itemized wage statements showing gross and net wages earned. California Labor Code requires employers to issue each employee an accurate itemized wage statement in writing showing gross wages earned, hourly rates used during the pay period, and time worked at each applicable hourly rate used to calculate the employee’s total pay. The case, Jileea Jordan v. Wax Center Partners Intermediate Holdco LLC, is currently pending in the Alameda Superior Court of the State of California.

If you have questions about how to file a California employment law class action, 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.

JBPerry Holdings and Valley Inventory Face Allegations of Failing to Pay Employee Wages

JBPerry Holdings and Valley Inventory are facing allegations that they violated the labor code by failing to pay their employees.

The Case: Tatiana Armstrong v. JBPerry Holdings and Valley Inventory

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

The Case No.: FCS059079

The Plaintiffs: Armstrong v. JBPerry Holdings and Valley Inventory

The plaintiff in the case, Tatiana Armstrong, filed a class action lawsuit on October 10, 2022. In the lawsuit, Armstrong alleged that the companies violated several labor laws:

• Unfair competition

• Failure to pay minimum wages

• Failure to pay overtime wages

• Failure to provide legally required meal periods

• Failure to provide mandatory rest periods

• Failure to pay wages when due

• Failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements

The Defendant: Armstrong v. JBPerry Holdings and Valley Inventory

The defendants in the case, JBPerry Holdings and Valley Inventory are both California corporations. According to the lawsuit, the two defendants were joint employers of Tatiana Armstrong. JBPerry Holdings and Valley Inventory provide inventory services such as item level and financial auditing. The plaintiff was employed at their Solano, California location from April 2021 to October 2021 as a non-exempt, hourly employee.

Details of the Case: Armstrong v. JBPerry Holdings and Valley Inventory

Due to their busy work schedules, JBPerry Holdings' and Valley Inventory Service's workers allegedly had to miss their off-duty meal breaks. The plaintiff claims they were not fully relieved of work duties for their rest periods for the same reason. The plaintiff describes off-duty meal breaks as being interrupted from time to time to fulfill work tasks for the company. Additionally, the company required employees to work shifts over five hours without providing a legally required off-duty meal break. On top of that, the plaintiff alleges that JBPerry Holdings and Valley Inventory Service violated labor law by failing to give the employees a second off-duty meal period during their workday (when employees were completing ten (10) hours shifts). Employees allege they had to remain on-call and on duty during their "off-duty" meal breaks. While the employees were required to forfeit meal breaks, the company did not provide additional compensation. Armstrong seeks compensation for her losses and the losses of other class members caused by the company's uniform policy. According to the class action wage and hour lawsuit, this business practice resulted in the company retaining wages due to their employees and failing to fully compensate them as required by law.

If you have questions about 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 in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

SAS Retail Services, LLC Faces Allegations they Failed to Reimburse Employees for Expenses

In recent news, SAS Retail Services faces allegations that they violated California employment law when they failed to reimburse their employees for business expenses.

The Case: Seaman and Rose v. SAS Retail Services LLC

The Court: Orange County Superior Court

The Case No.: 30-2022-01286330-CU-OE-CXC

The Plaintiff: Seaman and Rose v. SAS Retail Services LLC

The plaintiffs in the case, Epiphany Seaman and Courtney Rose, filed a class action complaint alleging multiple California employment law violations and demanding a jury trial. Seaman was employed by SAS Retail Services in California from November 2019 through February 2022, classified as a non-exempt employee and paid hourly. Rose was also employed by SAS Retail Services in California since June 2018 and was classified as a non-exempt employee and paid hourly. Based on their classifications, both Seaman and Rose were entitled to legally required meal and rest periods, minimum wage payment, and overtime wages. The plaintiffs filed the class action for themselves and others in similar circumstances at SAS Retail Services, seeking compensation for their losses.

The Defendant: Seaman and Rose v. SAS Retail Services LLC

The defendant in the case, SAS Retail Services LLC, SAS Retail Services LLC, operates out of California developing merchandising service programs for some of the nation's largest retailers and consumer brands.

The Case: Seaman and Rose v. SAS Retail Services LLC

The pending lawsuit alleges that SAS Retail Services failed to reimburse employees for required business expenses in violation of California Labor Code §2802. During their employment, the plaintiffs (and other California Class Members) were allegedly required to use their personal cellular phones, personal vehicles, and personal home offices to complete their necessary job duties. The plaintiffs also allege that SAS Retail Services failed to pay minimum wage and overtime wages. The lawsuit claims the plaintiffs received a non-discretionary bonus allegedly not included in calculations to determine their regular pay rate. Failing to include the bonus in calculations created a violation of minimum wage law, inaccurate overtime pay rates, etc. According to the plaintiffs, the non-discretionary bonus or "incentive program" was described to prospective employees and new hires as part of the company's compensation package.

If you have questions about filing a California overtime lawsuit, don't hesitate to contact 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.