Mother of Boy in Juvenile Detention Files Wrongful Death Lawsuit

The mother of a boy in juvenile detention filed a wrongful death lawsuit after the 16-year-old died of a fentanyl overdose while in custody.

The Case: Brenda Arguelles v. County of San Diego

The Court: U.S. District Court, Southern District of California

The Case No.: 23-cv-0321-H-AGS

The Plaintiff: Brenda Arguelles v. County of San Diego

The plaintiff in the case, Brenda Arguelles, is the mother of a 16-year-old boy who died of a fentanyl overdose while in custody at a juvenile detention center in San Diego, California. Brenda Arguelles' son was a minor at the time of his death, so he is not named. The boy was set for release on September 26, 2021. However, before he could be released, there was an incident. On September 5, he was checked into the on-site clinic's emergency room amid allegations of fentanyl use and vomiting. According to the complaint, he was returned to his cell at the detention center the next day, and his mother was not notified of the incident. On September 7, the boy was known to have entered the cell of another detainee, a fentanyl dealer at the detention center. The boy was discovered dead of a fentanyl overdose the next morning. Ms. Arguelles filed the wrongful death lawsuit seeking answers and hoping to hold the County accountable for failing closely supervise her son while in their custody.

The Defendant: Brenda Arguelles v. County of San Diego

The defendant in the case, the County of San Diego, faces allegations that they failed in their duties to closely supervise the minor while he was in their custody. The child's mother also alleges that the detention center failed to protect the juvenile from buying/selling drugs and that his health was not adequately monitored and treated.

The Case: Brenda Arguelles v. County of San Diego

In addition to seeking answers and hoping to hold the individuals who failed to fulfill their duty to supervise her son and keep him safe while in the custody of the detention center, Arguelles' complaint alleged:

1) A lack of appropriate safety checks at the juvenile detention center (which may have been enough to save the 16-year-old's life).

2) The failure to prevent the trade/sale of fentanyl inside the detention center.

3) Poor maintenance of the boy's prescription medication and overall health while in the detention center, and a lack of communication regarding both with his mother.

4) General lack of communication; (the mother claims she received no response to multiple calls to the facility regarding her son).

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.

California Plaintiffs and Five Guys Fifth Agreement Nears Settlement

In recent news, California plaintiffs and Five Guys are near a settlement (based on their fifth agreement).

The Case: Jeremy R. Lusk v. Five Guys Enterprises, Inc.

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

The Case No.: 1:17-cv-00762-JLT-EPG

The Plaintiff: Jeremy R. Lusk v. Five Guys Enterprises, Inc.

The plaintiff in the case, Jeremy R. Lusk, was an hourly, non-exempt manager in training at one of the Five Guys California locations from August to November 2016. He filed a class action lawsuit claiming the company violated labor law when they denied their workers' overtime pay and legally mandated breaks and rest periods. Preliminary approval was granted in September 2022 for a settlement based on the fifth agreement between the two parties.

The Defendant: Jeremy R. Lusk v. Five Guys Enterprises, Inc.

The defendant in the case, Five Guys Enterprises, Inc., is faced with a number of allegations.

• Failed to provide paid meal breaks and rest breaks for workers because it was too busy.

• Failed to pay workers legally mandated overtime pay.

• Required workers to work off the clock (requiring workers to clock out and then continue to complete required work duties like counting money in the cash register, etc.)

• Failing to reimburse employees for the use of personal cars in the course of completing their job duties (like traveling to and from other restaurant locations for pick-ups, supply runs, etc.)

• Failed to pay workers for overtime work.

• Failed to provide workers with accurate wage statements.

• Obtained authorization to conduct background checks using a disclosure form that did not comply with the law (FCRA (Fair Credit Reporting Act), CCRAA (California Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act), and ICRAA (Investigating Consumer Reporting Agency Act).

The Case: Jeremy R. Lusk v. Five Guys Enterprises, Inc.

The case, Jeremy R. Lusk v. Five Guys Enterprises, Inc., reached a fifth proposed settlement of $1.2 million that would involve 2,206 class members. The two parties await final approval of the settlement.

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.

Texas Man Files Wrongful Death Lawsuit Against Ex-Wife

In recent news, a Texas man filed a wrongful death lawsuit against his ex-wife and her two friends who assisted her in obtaining an abortion.

The Case: Marcus A. Silva v. Jackie Noyola; Amy Carpenter, formerly known as Amy Symmank; and Aracely Garcia

The Court: Galveston County - 56th District Court

The Case No.: 23-CV-0375

The Plaintiff: Marcus A. Silva v. Jackie Noyola; Amy Carpenter, formerly known as Amy Symmank; and Aracely Garcia

The plaintiff in the case, Marcus A. Silva, resided in Galveston County and was previously married to defendant Brittni Silva until their divorce in February of 2023. The Galveston County man sued three women under the wrongful death statute, alleging they helped his ex-wife terminate her pregnancy.

The Defendant: Marcus A. Silva v. Jackie Noyola; Amy Carpenter, formerly known as Amy Symmank; and Aracely Garcia

The defendants in the case, Jackie Noyola; Amy Carpenter, formerly known as Amy Symmank; and Aracely Garcia, include the plaintiff’s ex-wife and two women he alleges assisted her in arranging to have an abortion in the summer of 2022. According to Silva, his now ex-wife allegedly discovered she was pregnant in July 2022, a month after the overturn of Roe v. Wade. She allegedly conspired with two friends who helped her arrange to obtain abortion-inducing medication so she could terminate the pregnancy illegally.

The Case: Marcus A. Silva v. Jackie Noyola; Amy Carpenter, formerly known as Amy Symmank; and Aracely Garcia

The case, Marcus A. Silva v. Jackie Noyola; Amy Carpenter, formerly known as Amy Symmank; and Aracely Garcia, is the first case of its kind to be brought since the state’s near-total ban on abortion in the summer of 2022. Under Texas law, someone who assists a pregnant woman in obtaining a self-managed abortion commits the crime of murder and can be sued for wrongful death (See Texas Penal Code § 1.07; id. at § 19.02; id. at § 19.06 (murder statute); Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 71.001 et seq. (wrongful-death statute). After learning of the defendant’s involvement, Marcus Silva brought suit against them for wrongful death and conspiracy.

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.

Community Hospice, Inc. Faces Labor Law Violation Allegations

A former Community Hospice, Inc. employee filed a class action lawsuit claiming Community Hospice, Inc. failed to pay accurate overtime wages.

The Case: Tyeisha Travis v. Community Hospice, Inc.

The Court: Stanislaus County Superior Court

The Case No.: CV-23-001773

The Plaintiff: Tyeisha Travis v. Community Hospice, Inc.

The plaintiff in the case, Tyeisha Travis, was employed by Community Hospice, Inc. from September 2019 through April 13, 2022. Travis was an hourly, non-exempt employee. Travis filed the class action for herself and other similarly situated employees qualifying as class members.

The Defendant: Tyeisha Travis v. Community Hospice, Inc.

The defendant in the case, Community Hospice, Inc., provides medical, nursing, emotional, spiritual, and educational support to individuals and their families and loved ones as they cope with life-threatening illness, disease, and grief.

The Case: Tyeisha Travis v. Community Hospice, Inc.

In the case, Tyeisha Travis v. Community Hospice, Inc., the defendant allegedly failed to pay employees accurate sick wages in violation of labor law. When employees earned non-discretionary incentive wages, it increased their regular rate of pay. However, when the employees were paid sick pay, the sick pay was issued at the lower base rate of pay instead of the adjusted rate after the non-discretionary incentive wage additions. While working for Community Hospice, Inc., employees used their personal cell phones to complete their job duties. The plaintiff claims their cell phones were a necessary job expense that the company failed to reimburse.

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.

Did St. Anne's Foundation Violate California Labor Laws?

In a recently filed California class action complaint, St. Anne's Foundation faces allegations that they did not provide their employees with meal breaks and rest periods, which violates California labor law.

The Case: Britney Clarke v. St. Anne's Foundation and Family Services

The Court: Los Angeles County Superior Court

The Case No.: 22STCV14674

The Plaintiff: Britney Clarke v. St. Anne's Foundation and Family Services

The plaintiff in the case, Britney Clarke, is a Los Angeles County resident. The class is defined as hourly employees (current or former) residing in California employed by the defendant anytime between four years before the date of the complaint filing through the final resolution.

The Defendant: Britney Clarke v. St. Anne's Foundation and Family Services

The defendant in the case, St. Anne's Foundation, and Family Services, is a California corporation.

The Allegations: Britney Clarke v. St. Anne's Foundation and Family Services

• failing to pay minimum wages

• failing to pay overtime wages

• failing to provide required meal and rest periods

• failing to give employees their wages when due

• failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements

The Case: Britney Clarke v. St. Anne's Foundation and Family Services

According to court documents, Britney Clarke v. St. Anne's Foundation and Family Services allegedly violated labor law. The case poses the question of whether any failure to pay wages was willful on the defendant's part and whether St. Anne's corporate policy or practice violated labor law by failing to pay them for all hours worked promptly and providing overtime pay at the appropriate overtime pay rate. According to the plaintiff, the company required them to work more than 8 hours in one day and more than 40 hours in one week. The plaintiff claims that there was a clear pattern of wage abuse during her employment.

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

Did Prudent Security Solutions Inc. Violate California Labor Code?

In recent news, a class action complaint filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court includes allegations that Prudent Security Solutions Inc. violated California Labor Code.

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

The Court: Los Angeles County Superior Court

The Case No.: 23STCV04656

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

The plaintiffs in the case are Brian and Lisa Bradford. Brian Bradford was employed by Prudent Security Solutions Inc. in Los Angeles from March to April 2022. He was an hourly, non-exempt employee. Lisa Bradford was also employed by Prudent Security Solutions Inc. from March to April 2022, but she was paid hourly plus non-discretionary bonuses.

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

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

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

In the case, Brian and Lisa Bradford v. Prudent Security Solutions Inc., the plaintiffs claim that their employer violated several labor laws. California law requires employers to pay every employee on an established payday for all the hours they work during that pay period, at a pay rate no less than minimum wage. According to labor law, hours worked means time when the employee is subject to the employer’s control, which includes any time the employee is permitted to work, even if they are not required to work. According to court documents, Prudent Security Solutions allegedly required workers to complete work before their shift, after their shift, and during off-duty meal breaks. The off-the-clock work was allegedly not compensated, resulting in minimum wage violation allegations.

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.

Warby Parker Employee Files Wage and Hour Class Action Lawsuit

In a recently filed California class action complaint, a Warby Parker employee from Santa Clara County alleges numerous labor law violations.

The Case: Robert Chery v. Warby Parker

The Court: Santa Clara County Superior Court of the State of California

The Case No.: 21CV414694

The Plaintiff: Robert Chery v. Warby Parker

The plaintiff in the case, Robert Chery, was an employee of Warby Parker in the county of Santa Clara. Warby Parker employed Chery as a non-exempt employee as of December 2019. Chery filed the class action lawsuit on behalf of himself and qualifying class members citing numerous labor law violations.

Allegations: Robert Chery v. Warby Parker

• Unfair Competition

• Failure to pay minimum wage

• Failure to pay overtime wages

• Failure to provide legally required breaks and meal periods

• Failure to provide wages when due

• Failure to provide accurate ittemized wage statements

• Failure to reimburse employees for required work expenses

The Defendant: Robert Chery v. Warby Parker

The defendant in the case, Warby Parker, is a Delaware corporation conducting business in California. The defendant is a retailer of prescription eyeglasses, contact lenses, and sunglasses with locations throughout California.

The Case: Robert Chery v. Warby Parker

According to the court documents in Robert Chery v. Warby Parker, Chery filed the California class action alleging the company failed to provide meal periods and rest breaks for employees. The case is currently pending in Santa Clara County Superior Court. The plaintiff claims that a rigorous work schedule meant that employees were unable to take off duty meal breaks, and during meal periods that should have been off the clock, employees were allegedly not fully relieved of their work duties. According to Chery, the company would interrupt the employees during off-duty meal breaks so they could complete job-related tasks. According to teh plaintiff, employees were expected to work over 5 hours in one work shift without being provided an off-duty meal break. Additionally, the plaintiff alleges that Warby Parker did not provide a second off-duty meal break when employees completed shifts reaching 10 hours. Warby Parker allegedly expected workers to be on call and essentially on duty during their off-duty meal breaks. While employees allegedly forfeited their meal breaks, they were not provided additional compensation as company policy indicates they should.

If you have questions about how to file a California wage and hour class action, 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.