DWWH, Inc. dba Weir Canyon Honda Allegedly Violated Meal and Rest Break Law

In recent news, DWWH, Inc., dba Weir Canyon Honda, faces allegations of labor law violations.

The Case: Alejandro Estrada Ureno v. DWWH, Inc. dba Weir Canyon Honda

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

The Case No.: 30-2023-01316346-CU-OE-CXC

The Plaintiff: Alejandro Estrada Ureno v. DWWH, Inc. dba Weir Canyon Honda

The plaintiff in the case, Alejandro Estrada Ureno, started working for Weir Canyon Honda in July 2022. Ureno an hourly wage plus commission-based bonuses and non-discretionary bonuses. His employment status meant he was entitled to minimum wages, overtime pay, and compliance with meal and rest time break laws.

The Defendant: Alejandro Estrada Ureno v. DWWH, Inc. dba Weir Canyon Honda

The defendant in the case, DWWH, Inc. dba Weir Canyon Honda, owns and operates car dealerships in Orange County, California, and other locations throughout the state. Weir Canyon Honda faces a class action California lawsuit alleging they violated labor law. The defendant faces several labor law violation allegations:

(1) failing to pay minimum wages for all hours worked

(2) failing to pay overtime wages when due

(3) failing to provide the legally required meal breaks and rest periods

(4) failing to provide employees with an accurate itemized wage statement

(5) failing to pay wages on time; and

(6) failing to reimburse employees for necessary business expenses

The Case: Alejandro Estrada Ureno v. DWWH, Inc. dba Weir Canyon Honda

The case, Alejandro Estrada Ureno v. DWWH, Inc. dba Weir Canyon Honda, is a class action complaint alleging the company failed to provide workers with timely, off-duty meals and rest periods as required by law. The case is currently pending in the California's Orange County Superior Court.

If you have questions about how to file a California meal and rest break 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.

Did Apple Fail to Pay Overtime at the Correct Rate?

In a recent California overtime class action lawsuit, the plaintiff alleged that Apple's compensation practices violated labor law. Allegedly, Apple awards restricted stock units to their non-exempt employees. However, they allegedly do not incorporate the stock units into their regular pay rate for overtime pay calculations.

The Case: Costa et al. v. Apple Inc.

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

The Case No.: 5:23-cv-01353

What is a Class Action?

A class action is a legal proceeding. One or more plaintiffs may bring a class action lawsuit on behalf of a larger group, which is referred to as the “class.” Any proceeds resulting from a class-action lawsuit first pay legal fees, and are then shared amongst the qualifying class members.

The Plaintiff: Costa et al. v. Apple Inc.

The plaintiff in the case, Francis Costa, filed a class action against Apple claiming that their policy of awarding stock units to non-exempt employees without including the value in their regular pay rate to calculate overtime pay rates violates labor law. Costa filed the California overtime class action in California federal court. According to the plaintiff, Apple "intentionally, willfully, and regularly" violated the FLSA. Costa hopes to represent a nationwide class of any current or former non-exempt workers employed by Apple within the past three years who were awarded restricted stock units that vested during the same period.

 The Defendant: Costa et al. v. Apple Inc.

The defendant in the case, Apple Inc., allegedly includes the restricted stock units awarded to the employee on the payroll record. Still, the payroll records do not reflect the value of the vested restricted stock units included in the overtime pay rate calculations.

 What Are Overtime Pay Rate Calculations?

 To calculate an employee's regular rate of pay, you would need to add up all compensation earned during the workweek (excluding overtime premiums), and divide it by the total number of hours worked during the same workweek. This includes all forms of compensation such as hourly pay, salaries, commissions, bonuses, and some types of non-discretionary payments.

 The Case: Costa et al. v. Apple Inc.

 The case, Costa et al. v. Apple Inc., argues that Apple violated labor law when they allegedly failed to include the value of vested restricted stock unit compensation  as part of the regular rate of pay when they calculated the employee's overtime pay rate. The plaintiff demanded a jury trial and requested an award of declaratory relief and an award of unpaid overtime wages and liquidation and statutory damages. A California federal judge approved a $30 million class action settlement in August. The settlement resolved claims Apple allegedly violated labor law by requiring workers to comply with off-the-clock bag checks before and after their work shifts.

 If you have questions about how to file a California overtime 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

Dr. Pepper Faces the 3rd Overtime and Misclassification Lawsuit Since 2019

Keurig Dr. Pepper is facing another overtime and misclassification lawsuit, including allegations that the company failed to pay overtime wages by misclassifying their employees.

The Case: Francisco Verdin v. Keurig Dr. Pepper Inc.

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

The Case No.: 1:23-cv-10425

The Plaintiff: Francisco Verdin v. Keurig Dr. Pepper Inc.

The plaintiff in the case, Francisco Verdin, is a Keurig Dr. Pepper employee. Verdin was a Keurig Dr. Pepper warehouse supervisor for two years and then a forklift operator. Verdin claims he was paid a yearly salary despite frequently working over 40 hours in one week. Verdin said he sometimes worked as many as 60 hours in one week with no overtime compensation. Verdin filed an overtime class action lawsuit last month in Massachusetts federal court alleging the company misclassified their employees in both Pennsylvania and California as exempt from receiving overtime wages. According to the case, Keurig Dr. Pepper violated the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act (PMWA) and California labor law by allegedly not paying overtime wages to employees. In addition to the overtime wage allegations, plaintiffs allege wage statement violations, which often go hand in hand. Verdin also claims the company did not pay wages in a timely manner, which could result in waiting time penalties charged for record-keeping violations. The plaintiff alleges that the company violated unfair competition law by not providing accurate wages for hours worked by their employees.

The Defendant: Francisco Verdin v. Keurig Dr, Pepper Inc.

The defendant in the case, Keurig Dr. Pepper Inc., faces four allegations:

•Failure to pay the wages due

•Failure to pay wages due in a timely fashion (resulting in "waiting time penalties")

•Misclassifying employees and violating record-keeping laws by incorrectly labeling employees as overtime exempt

•Violating unfair competition law by not paying employees accurate wages for the hours they worked

The Case: Francisco Verdin v. Keurig Dr. Pepper Inc.

The case, Francisco Verdin v. Keurig Dr. Pepper Inc., is the third overtime lawsuit filed against Keurig Dr. Pepper since 2019.

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

A Southern California School District Agreed to Implement Safety Changes Along with $15.75M Settlement

After the death of an asthmatic student, a Southern California School District agreed to a settlement of $15.75 million, including requirements that they implement safety changes.

The Case: Sepulveda v. Yucaipa-Calimesa Joint Unified School District

The Court: Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Bernardino

The Case No.: CIVDS2016435

The Plaintiff: Sepulveda v. Yucaipa-Calimesa Joint Unified School District

The plaintiff in the case was the mother of 13-year-old Adilene Carrasco, a Mesa View Middle School student. Adilene Carrasco died after suffering an asthma attack on the school campus. The incident occurred on Halloween 2019. The child's mother alleged the school failed to follow its own safety protocols, resulting in her daughter's death.

The Defendant: Sepulveda v. Yucaipa-Calimesa Joint Unified School District

The defendant in the case, Yucaipa-Calimesa Joint Unified School District, offered a $15,750,000 settlement less than a month before the case was due to go to trial.

The Case: Sepulveda v. Yucaipa-Calimesa Joint Unified School District

In addition to the monetary settlement offered to the student's mother, the district also agreed to the following:

1) partner with asthma medical experts in the area so they could offer appropriate asthma management training to teachers and school staff,

2) adopt the California School Board Association's best practices on school-based asthma management, and

3) implement specific changes to the current protocols on the safety and supervision of students with asthma or other medical conditions.

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.

Elderly Woman’s Family to Receive $6M Settlement for Wrongful Death Lawsuit

In recent news, an elderly woman who died when an oncoming vehicle hit her as she crossed in an unmarked city crosswalk will receive a $6 million settlement.

The Case: Sheram Nadimyan, et al. v. City of Glendale

The Court: Los Angeles County Superior Court

The Case No.: 19STCV29013

The Plaintiff: Sheram Nadimyan, et al. v. City of Glendale

The plaintiff in the case is the family of an elderly woman, Novar Ismailyan, who was struck and killed by a car in an unmarked city crosswalk in Glendale. The family claimed that the crosswalk was unsafe.

The Defendant: Sheram Nadimyan, et al. v. City of Glendale

The defendant in the case, the City of Glendale, reached a $6 million settlement with the victim's family while the jury deliberated.

The Case: Sheram Nadimyan, et al. v. City of Glendale

In the case Sheram Nadimyan, et al. v. City of Glendale, the jurors returned on a Monday for a third day of deliberations to a settlement agreement. The Ismailyan family sued the city of Glendale after she was killed in 2018. Ismailyan's death occurred when she was using an unmarked city crosswalk one evening when she was struck by an oncoming vehicle. There was no settlement offer before the trial. During the trial, counsel for the plaintiff asked for an award of over $10 million based on arguments that the city crosswalk lacked necessary signage and other warnings to notify drivers to yield to pedestrians in the crosswalk. While the city maintained throughout the trial that the speeding driver caused the incident, the driver was not an active party involved in the case during the trial. While the jury deliberated, the two parties reached a settlement agreement.

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.

West Hills Hospital Allegedly Failed to Provide Breaks to Employees

In a recently filed California wage and hour lawsuit, West Hills Hospital faces allegations that they violated labor law, including failing to provide employees with legally required breaks and rest periods.

The Case: Emeterio Basto, Jr. v. West Hills Hospital

The Court: Los Angeles County Superior Court

The Case No.: 23STCV05973

The Plaintiff: Emeterio Basto, Jr. v. West Hills Hospital

The plaintiff in the case, Emeterio Basto, Jr., was employed by West Hills Hospital from January 2020 to July 2022 as a non-exempt, hourly employee entitled to the legally required meal and rest periods and payment of minimum and overtime wages for all time worked. However, according to the court documents, West Hills Hospital allegedly failed to fully relieve employees for their legally required off-duty breaks, resulting in employees missing out on minimum and overtime wages they were due.

The Defendant: Emeterio Basto, Jr. v. West Hills Hospital

The defendant in the case, West Hills Hospital, owns and operates a hospital in Los Angeles County, California.

The Case: Emeterio Basto, Jr. v. West Hills Hospital

In the case Emeterio Basto, Jr. v. West Hills Hospital, the plaintiff alleges that West Hills Hospital’s standard business practices and policies violated labor law by failing to pay overtime wages, failing to provide meal and rest periods as required by law, failing to pay minimum wage, failing to give the workers itemized accurate wage statements, failing to reimburse employees for expenses necessary to fulfill their job duties, failing to pay wages when due, and failing to pay sick wages. Such alleged misconduct gives rise to civil penalties. The lawsuit also alleges that West Hills Hospital employees could not take off-duty meal breaks because the work schedules were so rigorous. According to the plaintiff, the company did not provide employees who forfeited their legally mandated breaks with additional compensation as required. The case is currently pending in the Los Angeles County Superior Court.

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.

Logan's Roadhouse Faces Allegations they Did Not Provide Employees with Breaks

In a recently filed California class action lawsuit, Logan's Roadhouse faces allegations that they did not provide their employees with breaks, which violates labor law.

The Case: Symba Rose v. LG Enterprises LLC dba Logan's Roadhouse, J and A Food Service, Inc.,

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

The Case No.: 23CV00426

The Plaintiff: Symba Rose v. Logan's Roadhouse

The plaintiff in the case, Symba Rose (previously named Jamal Shabazz), was employed by Logan's Roadhouse (aka the Defendants) from July 2022 to August 2022 as a non-exempt hourly employee entitled to the protections offered employees by state and federal employment laws.

The Defendant: Symba Rose v. Logan's Roadhouse

The defendants in the case, LG Enterprises LLC dba Logan's Roadhouse, and J and A Food Service, Inc., were joint employers of the plaintiff, according to documents the company provided to the plaintiff. The plaintiff performed work for both, respectively, so both are considered jointly responsible by the plaintiff for actions leading to employment law violations as described in the lawsuit. Defendant owns, operates, or manages Logan's Roadhouse restaurants in California, including the Logan's Roadhouse in Butte County, where Symba Rose worked.

The Allegations: Symba Rose v. Logan's Roadhouse

The plaintiff claims that they engaged in numerous employment law violations during his time with the restaurant. According to the complaint, the defendants allegedly violated California Labor Code Sections §§ 201, 202, 203, 204, 210, 226, 226.7, 246, 510, 512, 558, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, and 1198 with practices and policies that resulted in:

• failing to pay minimum wages

• failing to pay overtime wages

• failing to provide required meal and rest periods

• failing to provide wages when due

• failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements

The Case: Symba Rose v. Logan's Roadhouse

According to court documents, Logan's Roadhouse employees, like the plaintiff, had rigorous work schedules, which allegedly left them unable to take off-duty rest breaks. In addition, they were not fully relieved of duty for their rest periods. Additionally, Logan's Roadhouse's and J and A Food Service's workers were allegedly not paid one hour of their regular working wage in place of missed breaks and rest periods.

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.