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.

Did Community Action Partnership of San Bernardino County Retaliate Against an Employee

In recent news, Community Action Partnership of San Bernardino County allegedly retaliated against one of their employees. According to reports, the retaliation followed the employee's report of alleged safety issues in the company's workspace.

The Case: Madison and Marable v. Community Action Partnership of San Bernardino County

The Court: California Superior Court for the County of San Bernardino

The Case No.: CIVSB2218158

The Plaintiff: Madison and Marable v. Community Action Partnership of San Bernardino County

The plaintiffs in the case, Madison and Marable, claim that the defendant failed to properly maintain standard safety measures in the office where employees were required to work. Beginning in March 2022, the plaintiff repeatedly reported the alleged safety issues to the company. According to the plaintiff, the company did not take the necessary action to protect the safety of its workers. The plaintiff alleges that the company retaliated against her as a direct consequence of the complaints by continuing to expose employees to ill co-workers and leaving employees unprotected in the office workspace.

The Defendant: Madison and Marable v. Community Action Partnership of San Bernardino County

The defendant in the lawsuit, Community Action Partnership of San Bernardino County, is a nonprofit agency whose work benefits San Bernardino County residents. The organization is part of a National Community Action Network established under the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, known as President Lyndon B. Johnson's "War on Poverty" movement. The group is also part of the National Association for State Community Services Programs (CAPSBC). The group dedicates its efforts to minimizing and eliminating homelessness and poverty.

Details of the Case: Madison and Marable v. Community Action Partnership of San Bernardino County

In addition to allegations that the defendant supported an unsafe work environment and allegedly retaliated against the plaintiff when she engaged in a protected act (reporting a hazardous work environment), the lawsuit includes claims that the defendant violated other labor laws. On top of creating an unsafe work environment and retaliation, the lawsuit alleges the company failed to relieve employees for legally required thirty-minute meal breaks and provide employees with ten-minute rest periods (when they work more than four hours).

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

Sweet Widow Agreed to Settle Wrongful Death Lawsuit for $8 Million

In recent news, the widow of Daniel Shaver, Laney Sweet, agreed to settle her wrongful death lawsuit for $8 million.

The Case: Sweet v. City of Mesa

The Court: United States District Court, District of Arizona

The Case No.: CV-17-00152-PHX-GMS

The Plaintiff: Sweet v. City of Mesa

The plaintiff in the case, Laney Sweet, is the widow of Daniel Shaver. Sweet filed a wrongful death lawsuit after her husband, Shaver, was shot and killed by the police when he was unarmed, standing outside his suburban hotel room in Arizona. The police officer involved in the shooting, former Mesa, Ariz., Police Officer Philip Brailsford, was charged with murder in the fatal 2016 shooting of the unarmed Shaver. However, the jury acquitted him of the murder charge. Sweet filed a lawsuit in 2017 against both parties seeking $75 million in damages. Last year, the city of Mesa settled a similar case with Shaver’s parents for an undisclosed amount.

The Defendant: Sweet v. City of Mesa

The City of Mesa police responded to a call in January 2016 stating that someone at the hotel was pointing a gun out a window. Once on the scene, the police ordered 26-year-old Shaver to exit his hotel room, lie face down in the hallway, and not make any sudden movements, or he could risk being shot. Former Officer Brailsford shot Shaver as he lay on the ground outside his hotel room. No gun was found on Shaver’s body, but two pellet rifles (related to his pest control job) were in his hotel room. The detective investigating the shooting of Shaver noted that while Shaver lay on the ground outside his room, the officers ordered him to crawl toward them. The detective concluded that while the movement Shaver made was similar to reaching for a pistol, it appeared that he was pulling up his loose-fitting basketball shorts that fell when he was ordered to crawl forward.

The Case: Sweet v. City of Mesa

A settlement notice was filed in Arizona’s federal court, showing that Laney Sweet and the couple’s two children will receive $8 million from the City of Mesa. The probate court approved the settlement’s terms and appointed a temporary conservator. All of Sweet’s legal claims are dismissed without prejudice in exchange for the settlement.

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.

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.