Did Pacific Production Plumbing Violate California Labor Law?

/

A recent California lawsuit alleges that Pacific Production Plumbing violated employee protections outlined in federal and state labor law.

The Case: Thomas E. Weathermon III v. Pacific Production Plumbing

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

The Case No.: 37-2022-00006167-CU-OE-CTL

The Plaintiff: Thomas E. Weathermon III v. Pacific Production Plumbing

The plaintiff in the case, Thomas E. Weathermon III, filed a class action complaint against Pacific Production Plumbing. In the complaint, Weathermon alleged that Pacific Production Plumbing failed to provide their employees with timely, off-duty meal and rest periods as required by law.

The Defendant: Thomas E. Weathermon III v. Pacific Production Plumbing

The defendant in the case, Pacific Production Plumbing, provides plumbing services to private, commercial, and construction customers throughout California, including San Diego, where the plaintiff worked.

The Case: Thomas E. Weathermon III v. Pacific Production Plumbing

In the case Thomas E. Weathermon III v. Pacific Production Plumbing, the defendant allegedly violated California Labor Code Sections §§ 201, 202, 203, 204, 226, 226.7, 246, 510, 512, 558, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198 and 2802 by engaging in practices and policies that resulted in:

  • failing to pay employees at least minimum wage for all hours worked

  • failing to pay overtime wages for all overtime hours worked

  • failing to provide required meal and rest periods as mandated by employment law

  • failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements to all employees

  • failing to provide wages when due

  • failing to reimburse workers for necessary business expenses

PAGA Violation: Thomas E. Weathermon III v. Pacific Production Plumbing

The lawsuit also alleges Pacific Production Plumbing violated the Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA"), which gives rise to civil penalties. PAGA allows aggrieved employees to file a lawsuit to recover civil penalties for themselves, other employees, and the State of California for Labor Code violations. PAGA "deputizes" aggrieved employees as private attorneys general, allowing them to take action to enforce the Labor Code on behalf of California (Cal. Lab. Code section 2699(c)).

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

Public Health Institute Allegedly Violated Meal & Rest Break Labor Laws

/

In recent news, allegations indicate that Public Health Institute may have violated labor law by failing to adhere to meal and rest break requirements.

The Case: Anysia Taylor v. Public Health Institute

The Court: Alameda County Superior Court

The Case No.: 23CV028034

The Plaintiff: Anysia Taylor v. Public Health Institute

The plaintiff in the case, Anysia Taylor, worked for Public Health Institute from January 2021 to April 2022. Taylor was employed as a non-exempt hourly worker entitled to the protections offered by federal and state labor law, including meal and rest periods, payment of minimum wage, and payment of overtime wages for all time worked. The plaintiff brings the class action wage and hour suit on behalf of herself and other eligible class members seeking losses that resulted from the employer’s policies and practices that violated labor law and failed to compensate non-exempt hourly employees lawfully. According to court documents, the plaintiff claims the defendant retained wages due to the plaintiff and other class members.

The Defendant: Anysia Taylor v. Public Health Institute

The defendant in the case, Public Health Institute, operates programs throughout California intended to improve overall health, equity, and wellness through new research, strengthening partnerships and programs already in place, and supporting and advancing specific public health policies.

The Case: Anysia Taylor v. Public Health Institute

The plaintiffs and eligible class members seek an injunction preventing similar unlawful conduct in the future and relief for economic injuries resulting from Public Health Institute’s allegedly illegal practices and policies.

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

Prudent Security Solutions Inc. Faces Wage and Hour Class Action

/

In recent news, Prudent Security Solutions Inc. faces a wage and hour class action citing multiple labor law violations.

The Case: Brian Bradford and Lisa Bradford v. Prudent Security Solutions Inc.

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

The Case No.: 23STCV04656

The Plaintiff: Brian Bradford and Lisa Bradford v. Prudent Security Solutions Inc.

The plaintiffs in the case are Brian and Lisa Bradford. Prudent Security Solutions Inc. employed Brian Bradford from March 2022 to April 2022. Bradford was a non-exempt employee paid hourly plus non-discretionary bonuses and was eligible for federal and state labor law protections, including minimum wage, overtime wage, meal breaks, and rest periods.

The Defendant: Brian Bradford and Lisa Bradford v. Prudent Security Solutions Inc.

The defendant in the case, Prudent Security Solutions Inc., provides security services throughout California, including Los Angeles.

The Case: Brian Bradford and Lisa Bradford v. Prudent Security Solutions Inc.

According to the lawsuit, Prudent Security Solutions allegedly committed various labor code violations, including failing to pay minimum wages, failing to pay overtime wages, failing to provide required meal and rest periods, failing to reimburse employees for necessary expenses, failing to pay wages when due, failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements, failing to pay vacation wages when due, failing to make lawful deductions, failing to pay wages during employment promptly, and failing to pay sick pay.

California Labor Law: Minimum Wage

According to California law, employers must pay their employees no less than the applicable minimum wage rate for all hours worked during the designated pay period on an established payday. The relevant wage order defines "hours worked" as the time during "which an employee is subject to the control of an employer," including the time the employee is suffered or allowed to work, even if they are not required to work.

The Case: Brian Bradford and Lisa Bradford v. Prudent Security Solutions Inc.

According to the plaintiff, Prudent Security Solutions required its employees to perform work before and after their scheduled shifts and during "off-duty" meal breaks. The plaintiffs also allege Prudent Security Solutions failed to compensate employees for time employees spent under the employer's control "off-the-clock." As a result, Prudent Security Solutions allegedly failed to provide employees with the applicable minimum wage for all hours worked.

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 wage and hour attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

AM Retail Group, Inc. Faces Workplace Retaliation Allegations

/

In recent news, AM Retail Group, Inc. faces allegations of workplace retaliation violating labor law.

The Case: Brenda Cardenas v. AM Retail Group, Inc.

The Court: San Diego County Superior Court

The Case No.: 37-2023-00011858-CU-OE-CTL

The Plaintiff: Brenda Cardenas v. AM Retail Group, Inc.

The plaintiff in the case, Brenda Cardenas, was employed by AM Retail Group, Inc. from January 2022t through April 6, 2022, classified as non-exempt and paid hourly. As an hourly, non-exempt employee, Cardenas was entitled to legally required meal and rest periods, payment of minimum wage, and accurate calculations and payment of overtime wages.

The Defendant: Brenda Cardenas v. AM Retail Group, Inc.

The defendant in the case, AM Retail Group, Inc., is a corporation that owns and operates clothing stores and conducts a substantial amount of business in California.

The Case: Brenda Cardenas v. AM Retail Group, Inc.

According to the complaint, AM Retail Group, Inc. allegedly failed to pay their employees for all the hours under the employer’s control, including when the plaintiff and other employees were required to submit to mandatory COVID-19 screening before clocking in for their shifts. As the time worked off the clock did not qualify for overtime premium payment, the plaintiff also claims that the defendant failed to pay minimum wage and overtime wages for all hours the plaintiff and other eligible class members worked while “off the clock.” In addition to minimum wage and overtime violations, the plaintiff allegedly reported incidences of disability discrimination to HR. According to court documents, the plaintiff was enduring continual pressure, obligations, and mistreatment by supervisors due to her mental and physical state. According to the plaintiff, when HR failed to respond to her complaints, she was forced to resign due to the hostile, discriminatory work environment.

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

Lala Trucking & Independent Contract Driver Face Wrongful Death Lawsuit

/

In recent news, a trucking company faces allegations of wrongful death in a lawsuit filed by the victim’s partner.

The Case: Spangle the Clown v. Lala Trucking, Inc. and Baljinder Singh

The Court: US District Court for the Western District of Missouri

The Case No.: 6:2022cv03324

The Plaintiff: Spangle the Clown v. Lala Trucking, Inc. and Baljinder Singh

The plaintiff in the case, Spangle the Clown, filed a wrongful death lawsuit against a truck driver and the trucking company he was driving for when the incident occurred. Before legally changing his name over 20 years ago, Spangle the Clown was known as Ronald Poindexter. In October 2022, Spangle the Clown filed a wrongful death lawsuit in Greene County, Missouri due to the death of his partner, Gloria Jean Grimsley. The two had a magic act and posed as Mr. and Mrs. Claus annually during the Christmas season. Grimsley’s adopted daughter, Amanda May, later filed a motion to join the wrongful death lawsuit.

The Defendant: Spangle the Clown v. Lala Trucking, Inc. and Baljinder Singh

The defendants in the case are Lala Trucking, Inc. and Baljinder Singh. Lala Trucking, Inc, founded by Varinder Singh in 2019, is a Fresno, California-based trucking company, and Baljinder Singh is one of their drivers. On March 23rd, just after 5 am, Grimsley was driving on US Highway 65 just north of Springfield when a 2016 Freightliner Cascadia driven by Bljinder Singh struck her vehicle, a 2000 Pontiac Montana. Singh was operating his vehicle as an independent contractor for Lala Trucking. Grimsley was pronounced dead upon arrival at the hospital.

The Case: Spangle the Clown v. Lala Trucking, Inc. and Baljinder Singh

Lala Trucking operates four trucks and uses six drivers. The company hauls fresh produce, meat, and other refrigerated foods. The Missouri Department of Transportation investigated the incident citing Baljinder Singh and Lala Trucking for failure to yield the right of way, an unsafe driving violation, and a false report of the driver’s record of duty status, which is an hours-of-service violation. Both defendants listed were also hit with two vehicle maintenance violations after the fatal crash, including an automatic airbrake adjustment system failing to compensate for wear and a clamp/roto-type brake that was out of adjustment on the truck.

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.

Capitol Police Officer’s Girlfriend Files Wrongful Death Lawsuit

/

Officer Brian Sicknick's girlfriend, Sandra Garza, filed a wrongful death lawsuit on January 6th, seeking $10 million from Trump and two others listed defendants.

The Case: Sandra Garza v. Donald J. Trump, Julian Elie Khater, and George Pierre Tanios

The Court: U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia

The Case No.: 1:23-cv-00038

The Plaintiff: Sandra Garza v. Donald J. Trump, Julian Elie Khater, and George Pierre Tanios

The plaintiff in the case, Sandra Garza, was Officer Sicknick's longtime girlfriend. Garza filed a wrongful death lawsuit accusing the defendants' campaign of lies and incendiary rhetoric as the cause of the U.S. Capitol ransacking in 2021 and, ultimately, the wrongful death of Sicknick. Officer Brian Sicknick died a day after the siege. Khater and Tanios, defendants in the case, were arrested in March 2021 and accused of assaulting officers with pepper spray. One of the officers they assaulted, Sicknick, collapsed later that day and died the following day after he suffered a series of strokes. After a medical examiner determined Sicknick died of natural causes, neither of the two listed defendants was charged with the officer's death. However, Khater pleaded guilty to assaulting Sicknick and another officer, USCP Officer Caroline Edwards.

The Defendant: Sandra Garza v. Donald J. Trump, Julian Elie Khater, and George Pierre Tanios

Sicknick died while trying to stop the insurrectionist effort at the Capitol. Garza's wrongful death lawsuit listed three defendants. Julian Khater and George Tanios were sentenced in federal court for their part in the assault on Sicknick. Tanios purchased the pepper spray used during the attack. Khater received one of the most severe sentences of the Capitol riot defendants.

The Case: Sandra Garza v. Donald J. Trump, Julian Elie Khater, and George Pierre Tanios

Garza's lawsuit requests $10 million in damages to be paid by each defendant named in the suit. In addition, the plaintiff requests punitive damages and attorney fees and costs. Edwards, the other officer Khater pleaded guilty to assault with pepper spray during the riot, suffered a traumatic brain injury due to the assault.

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.

Saputo Dairy Foods USA, LLC Faces a California Class Action Complaint

/

Saputo Dairy Foods USA, LLC faces a class action complaint alleging that they violated California Labor Law.

The Case: Juan Romero v. Saputo Dairy Foods USA, LLC

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

The Case No.: 23CV-00403

The Plaintiff: Juan Romero v. Saputo Dairy Foods USA, LLC

The plaintiff in the case,  Juan Romero, filed a class action complaint alleging that Saputo Dairy Foods USA, LLC violated labor law. The alleged violations include:

  • failure to pay minimum wage

  • failure to pay overtime wages

  • failure to provide legally required meal breaks and rest periods

  • failure to provide workers with accurate itemized wage statements

  • failure to reimburse employees for necessary business expenses

  • failure to pay sick wages

The Defendant: Juan Romero v. Saputo Dairy Foods USA, LLC

The defendant in the case, Saputo Dairy Foods USA, LLC, produces, markets, and distributes various dairy products. According to the plaintiff, the company allegedly failed to reimburse their employees for required business expenses. According to California Labor Code § 2802, "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..." According to the plaintiff, Juan Romero, he and other eligible California Class Members were allegedly required to use their personal cell phones to complete their job duties.

The Case: Juan Romero v. Saputo Dairy Foods USA, LLC

In the case Juan Romero v. Saputo Dairy Foods USA, LLC, the defendant faces allegations of numerous labor law violations. The claims included in the complaint violate Labor Code sections §§ 201-204, 226, 226.7, 233, 510, 512, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 2802, and the applicable Wage Order(s). The alleged conduct could result in civil penalties.

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.