Judge Awards Petito Family $3M in Wrongful Death Lawsuit

A year after their daughter's highly publicized death, Gabby Petito's family is awarded a $3 million settlement for their wrongful death lawsuit.

The Case: Petito v. Laundrie

The Court: Circuit Court, 12th Judicial Circuit, Sarasota County Florida

The Case No.: 2022 CA 1128 SC

The Plaintiff: Petito v. Laundrie

The plaintiffs in the case were the family of Gabby Petito. Following the death of their daughter, the family filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Brian Laundrie's estate. The Petito family lost their daughter, and before the mystery surrounding her death was solved, her fiance, Brian Laundrie, committed suicide - leaving behind a notebook in which he confessed. Denied the opportunity to confront their daughter's killer, Gabby's family sought justice through the court system in the only way they knew how.

The Defendant: Petito v. Laundrie

The defendant in the case was Laundrie's estate. Laundrie was Gabby's fiance. At the time of her death, the two were on a cross-country road trip "out West" in a converted van that Gabby was documenting on social media.

The Case: Petito v. Laundrie

The final judgment from the 12th Judicial Circuit Court awarded the Petito family $3 million from Laundrie's estate. According to the media, the family filed a second lawsuit pending in Sarasota, claiming that Laundrie's parents concealed their son's confession before he returned home to Florida in September 2021 without Gabby. Separate from the wrongful death lawsuit against Laundrie's estate, the Petito family also filed a wrongful death lawsuit against the Moab City Police Department to demand accountability and seek change in the system. Shortly before Gabby's death, the police responded to a domestic violence call and interviewed Gabby and Brian. Gabby's body was later found in the Spread Creek Dispersed Area of the Bridger-Teton National Forest (September 19, 2021). Federal investigators confirmed it was Gabby Petito two days later, but the death was initially ruled a homicide, with Brian Laundrie noted as a person of interest. Laundrie went missing shortly after the search for Petito began. His body was later recovered in the Carlton Reserve. The FBI obtained his confession written in a notebook in October 2021. In the notebook, Laundrie confessed to the murder of Gabby Petito, his former fiance. It is suspected that Gabby Petito was a victim of long-term domestic violence and abuse. The family hopes to bring attention to the lack of response and proper police training that could have put a stop to this situation and avoided the fatal outcome.

If you have questions about how to file a California wrongful death 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.

Mosaic Sales Solutions Settles Expense Reimbursement Class Action Lawsuit for $148K

In recent news, Mosaic Sales Solutions agreed to settle a class action expense reimbursement lawsuit for $148K.

The Case: Coyle v. Mosaic Sales

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

The Case No.: 19STCV30088

The Plaintiff: Coyle v. Mosaic Sales

The plaintiff in the case filed the class action on behalf of individuals who worked as brand ambassadors for Mosaic Sales Solutions in California between Aug. 27, 2015, and June 30, 2021. The class definition includes about 3,100 Mosaic workers. According to the California class action lawsuit, Mosaic Sales brand ambassadors were required to cover business expenses like cellphone costs, other communication device and service expenses, mileage expenses, and more. The company did not reimburse them for the business expenses. Mosaic Sales allegedly violated California labor law by failing to reimburse their brand ambassadors for business expenses.

The Defendant: Coyle v. Mosaic Sales

The defendant in the case, Mosaic Sales Solutions, is a marketing agency offering numerous services such as brand design, commerce support, business strategies, online marketing, and more. Mosaic’s brand ambassadors provide the company with information on various products at different retail locations. The data brand ambassadors gathered was used to optimize sales for the company.

Details of the Case: Coyle v. Mosaic Sales

Mosaic Sales allegedly violated California labor law by failing to reimburse brand ambassadors for business expenses. Under California state law, employers must reimburse employees for costs or losses incurred “in direct consequence” of their job duties. Mosaic Sales Solutions agreed to pay $148,000 to resolve the class action lawsuit claiming they violated employment law by failing to reimburse brand ambassadors for business expenses.

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

AT&T Settles California Wage & Hour Class Action for $575K

As part of a settlement to resolve minimum wage and overtime pay claims, AT&T agreed to a settlement.

The Case: Razo, et al. v. AT&T Mobility

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

The Case No.: 1:20-cv-0172 JLT HBK

The Plaintiff: Razo, et al. v. AT&T Mobility

The plaintiffs in the case filed a collective action citing wage and hour violations and overtime pay violations. According to the class action lawsuit, AT&T wrongfully classified certain employees as non-exempt, which allegedly denied the misclassified employees benefits like minimum wage and overtime wages. Plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit claim AT&T’s actions violated California labor laws. The class includes anyone working for AT&T Mobility Services in California as a non-exempt employee between November 2, 2021, and September 21, 2022.

The Defendant: Razo, et al. v. AT&T Mobility

The defendant in the case, AT&T, is a phone company that provides cellular services to consumers. The company also offers internet and TV plans. AT&T has numerous locations throughout California. AT&T denied any wrongdoing but agreed to a settlement to resolve the allegations of overtime pay and minimum wage violations.

Details of the Case: Razo, et al. v. AT&T Mobility

California’s labor laws are some of the strictest in the U.S. Businesses must comply with labor law requirements or risk facing legal action. Consumers, including the plaintiffs in the AT&T class action lawsuit Razo, et al. v. AT&T Mobility, can file claims under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA). Doing so allows them to seek penalties for the state’s labor regulator. While AT&T never admitted any wrongdoing, they did agree to a $575,000 class action settlement to resolve these wage and hour allegations. (The settlement includes a $7,500 payment to the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency under PAGA). The parties also included a pro rata cash payment for class members in the AT&T settlement. The amount will be based on the number of weeks worked by each worker during the class period.

If you have questions about how to file a California wage & 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.

Merrill Settles Employee Misclassification Collective Action for $3.4M

In recent news, Merrill settled an employee misclassification collection action for $3.4 million.

The Case: Hill v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated

The Court: Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County, Florida

The Case No.: 50-2022-CA-007445-XXXX-MB

The Plaintiff: Hill v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated

The plaintiffs in the case filed a collective action on behalf of Financial Solutions Advisors employed by Merrill between Aug. 3, 2020, and Aug. 10, 2022. The class action lawsuit alleged the company misclassified an entire class of employees as exempt from overtime laws, which resulted in lost wages. In the case, the plaintiffs claim the defendant encouraged their FSA employees to work over 40 hours per week but did not pay them the overtime pay they earned. They allegedly enacted a company-wide policy that classified all Merrill FSAs as exempt from federal overtime protections. The plaintiffs claim the defendant willfully misclassified FSAs as exempt, failed to record the time the FSAs worked, and failed to pay FSAs proper overtime wages as required by labor law.

The Defendant: Hill v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated

According to the class action, Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith is one of the world's largest banks and brokerage firms. Also known simply as Merrill, the group is the investment and wealth management division of the well-known financial institution Bank of America. Merrill denies it violated the law and that FSAs were compensated correctly.

The Case: Hill v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated

Employee misclassification is common in today's workplaces, and rules about who is exempt or non-exempt and what types of work are eligible for overtime can vary depending on state laws. Merrill set up a fund of $3.4 million to resolve the misclassification and overtime class action. The $3.4 million settles the collective action lawsuit alleging the company violated the FLSA. The amount each class member receives is based on the number of weeks the employee worked during the applicable time period. Once a class member becomes part of the collective action in Hill v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated, they cannot sue Merrill for any claims relating to the lawsuit. Merrill denies the alleged employment law violations, stating that the settlement agreement avoids additional litigation expenses.

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

FedEx Misclassification Jury Trial Settled After One Day of Testimony

After only one day of testimony, FedEx agreed to settle a misclassification lawsuit.

The Case: Hinds v. FedEx Ground Package System Inc.

The Court: N.D. Cal.

The Case No.: 4:18-cv-01431

The Plaintiff: Hinds v. FedEx Ground Package System Inc.

The plaintiffs filed a class action complaint in 2018 against FedEx Ground. According to court documents, FedEx Ground operates distribution facilities at numerous spots throughout California. As part of their standard operations, FedEx Ground has contracts with multiple small “motor carriers” that provide both vehicles and drivers for package pick at FedEx Ground distribution facilities. After picking up packages, the drivers delivered them to customers. The carriers also pick up parcels from FedEx customers and deliver them back to the FedEx Ground facility. According to the complaint, FedEx worked with Bay Rim Services as an independent service provider to engage two drivers. The drivers filed suit, citing Bay Rim and FedEx Ground as joint employers who jointly violated California Labor Code provisions regarding overtime pay, meal and rest breaks, and maintaining records of employee hours and pay.

The Defendant: Hinds v. FedEx Ground Package System Inc.

The defendant in the case, FedEx Ground Package System Inc., claims they are not a joint employer and had no role in the hiring or terminating of Bay Rim drivers, employment conditions, or paychecks.

The Case: Hinds v. FedEx Ground Package System Inc.

Last year the court denied the plaintiffs’ motion to certify a class of drivers deciding that the drivers failed to establish a common issue predominant throughout the class of drivers who provided services to carriers. During the first day (and only day) of testimony at the jury trial, the plaintiff’s legal team argued that Bay Rim and other independent service providers who work with FedEx are generally “mom-and-pop” companies that work exclusively with FedEx. With only a few trucks and drivers dedicated to providing services contracted through FedEx, the companies must become LLCs and comply with FedEx company rules. After just one day of testimony, FedEx agreed to settle the case. The terms of the settlement are confidential.

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.

Shipt Same Day Delivery Service Faces Wage & Hour Violation Allegations

In recent news, Shipt faces wage and hour law violation allegations in Ellison v. Shipt, Inc.

The Case: Ellison v. Shipt, Inc.

The Court: Dist. Ct. 4th Jud. Dist. Minn.

The Case No.: 27-cv-22-15991

The Plaintiff: Ellison v. Shipt, Inc.

The plaintiff in the case, Ellison, claims alleged violations of Minnesota wage and hour laws due to Shipt, Inc.’s misclassification of workers as independent contractors. In his complaint against Shipt, the Attorney General alleges that Shipt shoppers must comply with detailed instructions provided by the company and rules on the performance of every aspect of their job duties. Shoppers are also allegedly required to offer shopping services personally, with Shipt prohibiting them from hiring an assistant. According to the complaint, shoppers are also subject to performance reviews and have an ongoing but indefinite relationship with the company. Shoppers must complete both onboarding and corrective training (as necessary), usually need to schedule their work hours in advance and are reimbursed for certain expenses connected to customer orders.

The Defendant: Ellison v. Shipt, Inc.

The defendant in the case, Shipt, Inc., is a same-day delivery service. Shipt is a wholly owned subsidiary of Target, the popular big box store. It offers an app designed to make online grocery delivery easy by connecting Shipt shoppers with nearby stores with the things they need. The company has “shoppers” that they classify as independent contractors that provide same-day delivery of groceries and other household items purchased by users of the Shipt app online platform. The same-day delivery service provider was sued for independent contractor misclassification in Minnesota. Shipt faces allegations of violating the state wage and hour laws due to the misclassification of workers.

The Case: Ellison v. Shipt, Inc.

According to the Attorney General, additional factors considered in the case included:

• Shipt can also discharge their shoppers at any time for any reason

• Shopper services are only available to the public through the app

• Shoppers are unable to generate a profit or a loss based on job performance

• Shoppers are not required to make a significant investment in the business

• Shoppers are an essential element of the company’s day-to-day business.

Most expect Shipt to deny the allegations of employment law violations.

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

Instacart Agrees to $46M Settlement to Resolve Misclassification Lawsuit

In recent news, Instacart agreed to a $46 million settlement to resolve a misclassification lawsuit.

The Case: The People of the State of California v. Maplebear Inc.

The Court: Super. Court of California, San Diego County.

The Case No.: 37-2019-00048731

The Plaintiffs: The People of the State of California v. Maplebear Inc.

The plaintiffs in the case, The People of the State of California v. Maplebear Inc., claim that Instacart violated state labor law and California's Unfair Competition Law. According to the complaint, Instacart workers, referred to as "shoppers," were required to maintain and fuel their own personal vehicles, use their own smart devices, and pay for other equipment (like PPE gear necessary for protection against COVID-19). The plaintiffs filed a misclassification lawsuit based on the situation Instacart created for their shoppers.

The Defendant: The People of the State of California v. Maplebear Inc.

The defendant in the case, Maplebear Inc. (also known as Instacart), is a San Francisco-based online platform or gig shopping company offering same-day grocery delivery.

Details of the Case: The People of the State of California v. Maplebear Inc.

Instacart agreed to pay $46 million to settle the misclassification lawsuit the City of San Diego filed. The $46 million settlement covers about 308,000 shoppers. The settlement funds will be distributed based on the number of hours worked by each of the shoppers during the time period specified in the suit. According to court documents, the agreed settlement amount means Instacart will pay a minimum of $37 million direction to shoppers, which equates to approximately $120 per eligible shopper.

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 assist you in various law firm offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.