Employees Allege Matrix Providers Failed to Pay for Time Worked

In recent news, employees allege that Matrix Providers failed to pay workers for all the time worked.

The Case: Daniela Rivas-Mulia v. Matrix Providers, Inc.

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

The Case No.: 37-2023-00036339-CU-OE-CTL

The Plaintiff: Daniela Rivas-Mulia v. Matrix Providers, Inc.

The plaintiff in the case, Daniela Rivas-Mulia, filed a class action complaint alleging the defendant failed to provide employees with timely, off-duty meal breaks and rest periods.

The Defendant: Daniela Rivas-Mulia v. Matrix Providers, Inc.

The defendant in the case, Matrix Providers, Inc., allegedly violated numerous labor laws, including violations of California Labor Code Sections §§ 201, 202, 203, 204, 210, 226, 226.7, 510, 512, 558, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, and 2802. Alleged violations include:

• failing to pay minimum wage

• failing to pay overtime wages

• failing to provide meal periods and rest breaks

• failed to reimburse employees for necessary job expenses

• failed to provide employees with accurate itemized wage statements

• failed to pay wages when they were due

The Case: Daniela Rivas-Mulia v. Matrix Providers, Inc.

The case, Daniela Rivas-Mulia v. Matrix Providers, Inc., is currently pending in the San Diego County Superior Court of the State of California. Under California labor law, employers must pay their employees on the designated payday for each pay period. Labor law also requires that employers pay their employees no less than the applicable minimum wage for all the hours worked in each payroll period (no matter how their payment is calculated (time, piece rate, commission, etc.)).

How Does California Labor Law Define “Hours Worked?”

California defines "hours worked" as when an employee is subject to the control of an employer and is required to be on the employer's premises or at a prescribed workplace. This definition includes all time an employee is suffered or permitted to work, whether or not the work is done voluntarily. In essence, hours worked in California encompass not only the time spent actively performing job duties but also time when an employee is under the employer's control or direction, even if they are not actively engaged in work. Matrix Providers allegedly required workers to complete tasks before clocking in and after their scheduled shifts were completed, as well as during their off-duty meal breaks. The class action claims Matrix Providers failed to compensate workers for time spent “working” under the employer's control while they were technically off-the-clock. In doing so, Matrix Providers allegedly failed to pay its workers minimum wage for all hours worked.

If you have questions about how to file a 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.

Balance Staffing and Draxlmaier Face Allegations of Meal Break Violations

In recent news, Balance Staffing and Draxlmaier face meal break and rest break violation allegations.

The Case: Ricardo Barahona Mayorga v. Balance Staffing Workforce, et al.

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

The Case No.: 23CV042695

The Plaintiff: Ricardo Barahona Mayorga v. Balance Staffing Workforce, et al.

The plaintiff in the case, Ricardo Barahona Mayorg, filed a class action complaint against the defendant, Balance Staffing Workforce LLC, and several connected entities (collectively referred to as Balance Staffing here). The class action complaint also makes allegations on behalf of Balance Staffing employees who worked for Draxlmaier. Plaintiffs claim that the company failed to accurately pay employees' wages for all their time worked in violation of California labor codes.

The Defendant: Ricardo Barahona Mayorga v. Balance Staffing Workforce, et al. 

The defendant in the case, Balance Staffing (and Draxlmaier), allegedly violated California Labor Law when they engaged in the following illegal business practices:

• failing to pay minimum wage

• failing to pay overtime wages

• failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements

• failing to provide the required meal breaks and rest periods

• failing to pay wages when due

• failing to reimburse employees for necessary business expenses

Are California Employers Required to Provide Wage Statements to Employees?

Failing to provide accurate, itemized wage statements to employees is one of the most common employment law violations. California Labor Code Section 226 is the specific law that requires California employers to provide employees with wage statements (a.k.a. itemized wage statements). Under Section 226, wage statements must include certain information:

• total hours worked (unless the employee is on salary)

• gross wages earned during the pay period

• number of piece-rate units earned/applicable piece rate (if an employee is paid on a piece-rate basis)

• any deductions from wages (taxes, insurance premiums, retirement, etc.)

• net wages earned

• pay period dates

• employee’s name and employee identification number or last four digits of social security number

• employer’s name and address (including main office or principal place of business)

 The requirement to provide employees with accurate, itemized wage statements is designed to create transparency and compliance with labor laws.

If you have questions about how to file a wage and hour 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.

Dangerous Snow Sled Allegedly Results in Injuries and Death

In recent news, the Estate of Xiaoyan Kolodgy-Nagy filed a wrongful death lawsuit after the decedent sustained injuries and later died due to the use of a defective snow sled.

The Case: Kolodny-Nagy et al. v. Weanas, Inc. et al.

The Court: California Central District Court.

The Case No.: 2:23-cv-02588

The Plaintiff: Kolodny-Nagy et al. v. Weanas, Inc. et al.

The plaintiff in the case, the Estate of Xiaoyan Kolodgy-Nagy, filed claims that Dahveed Kolodny-Nagy, the decedent, suffered injuries and died after using a defective snow sled manufactured and sold online by Weanas, Inc. The plaintiff purchased the allegedly defective sled for $29.76. The dangerous snow tube was labeled as Weanas 47-inch Snow Sled.

The Defendant: Kolodny-Nagy et al v. Weanas, Inc. et al.

The defendant in the case, Weanas, Inc., is the manufacturer and seller of the Weanas 47-inch snow sled purchased by the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff’s claims, the defendant concealed or suppressed material facts. As the designer, manufacturer, and distributor of the snow tube, Weanas allegedly failed to complete adequate testing before placing their product on the market. The snow sled also allegedly failed to include proper warnings and instructions.

The Case: Kolodny-Nagy et al. v. Weanas, Inc. et al.

In the case Kolodny-Nagy et al. v. Weanas, Inc. et al., the plaintiff’s counsel argues that the defendant failed to test their product properly, failed to provide adequate warnings of danger or instructions for proper use, and as a result of the dangerous defective design, injury, and death occurred. The plaintiffs’ counsel also argued that the defendants sold the dangerous snow tube to the plaintiffs after other consumers who purchased the product complained about safety issues. According to court documents, other Weanas customers reported that the Weanas 47-inch Snow Sled was dangerous and caused injuries before the product was delivered to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs also indicated that the company did not attempt to contact them to warn them of the potential dangers or problems other consumers were reporting about the product. Instead, the company promoted the product as safe for multiple people up to 500 pounds. The plaintiffs’ counsel claims the defendant acted knowingly and maliciously and that their actions resulted in severe physical, mental, and emotional injuries after the out-of-control snow tube crashed into a rock on a hill the plaintiffs were sledding, which ultimately resulted in the death of Xiaoyan Kolodny-Nagy. The plaintiffs claim the defendant’s actions caused them to suffer property damage, wrongful death and survivor damages, and significant physical, mental, and emotional injuries due to the loss of their wife/mother, Xiaoyan Kolodny-Nagy, and other injuries sustained by the Plaintiffs.

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.

Morgan Stanley Faces Wrongful Termination and Reverse Discrimination Claims

In recent news, a former Morgan Stanley executive claims wrongful termination and reverse discrimination.

The Case: Kevin Meyersburg v. Morgan Stanley & Co., LLC

The Court: United States District Court Southern District of New York

The Case No.: 1:23-cv-07638

The Plaintiff: Kevin Meyersburg v. Morgan Stanley & Co., LLC

The plaintiff in the case, Meyersburg, was Morgan Stanley’s Managing Director and Head of Executive Service. During his time in the position, Meyersburg accumulated many accomplishments and successes for the company, including massive growth, productivity, and profitability in his department when other departments struggled to make a profit. In April 2023, Morgan Stanley started announcing a series of layoffs due to the Firm’s financial underperformance. Most layoffs were completed by combining and collapsing teams performing similar functions. Meyersburg’s Executive Services Team didn’t see many adjustments or layoffs due to their excessive success and productivity. However, despite his documented strong performance and the success of the Executive Services team while under his leadership, on May 11, 2023, Morgan Stanley told Meyersburg he was being terminated from his position. The company replaced him with a Black female with significantly less experience and qualifications. The company provided no performance or work-related deficiency for Meyersburg’s termination. Instead, his termination was allegedly the Firm’s attempt to comply with its Diversity and Inclusion objectives, which would mean the Firm illegally fired Meyersburg because of his sex, race, and/or color.

The Defendant: Kevin Meyersburg v. Morgan Stanley & Co., LLC

The defendant in the case, Morgan Stanley, did not make a public statement regarding the allegations.

The Case: Kevin Meyersburg v. Morgan Stanley & Co., LLC

The case is one of many that target corporate diversity, equity, and inclusion policies and practices that allege reverse discrimination. The influx of legal actions targeting corporate diversity and inclusion practices seems inspired by the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down affirmative action in college admissions in June. However, even before the decision to strike down affirmative action in the college admissions process, reverse discrimination cases increased as internal concerns around DEI increased. Recent cases targeting corporate diversity policies supporting reverse discrimination attempt to translate the court’s race-blind stance toward college admissions to the workplace.

If you have questions about how to file a California wrongful termination lawsuit, please get in touch with 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.

Traumatic Brain Injury Case for Mother and Daughter Settled Directly with Company

In recent news, a mother and her daughter suffered traumatic brain injuries after being hit from behind while stopped in traffic on the Interstate.

The Case: Shields and Kelly v. Edwards and Fleetmaster Express, Inc.

The Court: Roanoke County Circuit Court

The Case No.: CL22000088-00 and CL22000097-00

The Plaintiff: Shields and Kelly v. Edwards and Fleetmaster Express, Inc.

The plaintiff in the case is a mother and her daughter. On February 7, 2021, the two were stopped in Roanoke County's Interstate 81 North for traffic when a tractor-trailer struck their vehicle from behind. As a result of the collision, the plaintiff's vehicle struck the vehicle in front of them, killing a passenger and leaving the driver of that vehicle quadriplegic. The plaintiff sustained orthopedic and traumatic brain injuries.

The Defendant: Shields and Kelly v. Edwards and Fleetmaster Express, Inc.

The defendant in the case, Edwards and Edwards Fleetmaster Express, Inc., operated a tractor-trailer vehicle that struck the plaintiff's vehicle from behind on Interstate 81 North on February 7, 2021.

The Case: Shields and Kelly v. Edwards and Fleetmaster Express, Inc.

Due to the collision, three personal injury cases and one wrongful death case were filed. The defendant's coverage was limited to $5 million, and the damage to the vehicle's occupants in front of the plaintiff's car exceeded the maximum coverage and the defendant's assets. The parties held a joint mediation to avoid the elimination of any recovery for the plaintiff. However, mediation failed to resolve the case. Since mediation failed, the plaintiffs' counsel approached the company directly after the cases were set for trial. The company settled with the plaintiffs, providing special damages to Kelly for $145,980 and Shields for $63,228. The parties also agreed on a $1,550,000 settlement.

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

Determining Duty of Care and Workers’ Comp Exclusivity for California Employers

A recent California case questioned whether or not the California Workers’ Compensation Act blocks an employee’s spouse’s negligence claim and whether California employers owe a duty of care to prevent the spread of COVID-19 to spouses of employees.

The Case: Kuciemba v. Victory Woodworks

The Court: Northern District of California

The Case No.: 3:20-cv-09355-MMC

The Plaintiff: Kuciemba v. Victory Woodworks

The plaintiff in the case, Robert Kuciemba, started working for Victory Woodworks, Inc. (Victory) on May 6, 2020, at a San Francisco construction site. Two months later, a group of employees from another job site were transferred to the San Francisco site without the company’s compliance with precautions required by the county’s health order. After exposure to the new workers, Robert became infected. He carried the virus home and exposed his wife, Corby. Corby was hospitalized for several weeks and, at one point, was even kept alive on a respirator. The Kuciembas sued Victory in 2020, alleging negligence, negligence per se, premises liability, and public nuisance.

The Defendant: Kuciemba v. Victory Woodworks

The defendant in the case, Victory, moved to dismiss. When the district court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss, the plaintiffs filed an appeal. On June 22, 2022, the appeals court agreed to answer the certified questions regarding workers’ compensation exclusivity and the duty of care.

The Case: Kuciemba v. Victory Woodworks

In today’s case, the Supreme Court of the State of California issued an opinion addressing two questions of California law to determine the scope of an employer’s liability when an employee’s spouse is injured by transmission of the virus1 that causes the disease known as COVID-19. First, if an employee contracts COVID-19 and brings the virus home to their spouse, does the California Workers’ Compensation Act (WCA; Lab. Code, § 3200 et seq.) bar the spouse’s negligence claim against their California employer? And second, does a California employer owe a duty of care under California law to prevent the spread of COVID-19 to employees’ household members? The court determined that the answer to both questions is no. The California Workers’ Compensation Act does not prevent the spouse’s negligence claim against their California employer. However, recognizing a duty of care to nonemployees in this context would create an intolerable burden on California employers (violating public policy). Considering this, the California Supreme Court determined that California employers do not owe a tort-based duty to nonemployees in preventing the spread of COVID-19.

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

Jury Rejects $34.7M in Roller Coaster Brain Injury Lawsuit

In recent news, a Los Angeles jury found in favor of Six Flags Magic Mountain, clearing them of all liability in a long-running lawsuit claiming one of the amusement park’s roller coasters caused a visiting girl’s traumatic brain injury.

The Case: Talia Wise v. Six Flags, et al.

The Court: Los Angeles County Superior Court.

The Case No.: BC679307

The Plaintiff: Talia Wise v. Six Flags, et al.

The plaintiff in the case, Talia Wise, claimed the Green Lantern ride at Six Flags Magic Mountain caused damage to her brain in 2015 when she was 13 years old. Wise claimed the Green Lantern rollercoaster ride’s individually spinning seat design was unsafe. (The ride was closed in 2019 after generating some controversy among coaster enthusiasts). The plaintiff argued that due to the rollercoaster design causing her head to snap back and forth violently, she started suffering physical symptoms, including nausea and weakness, immediately after leaving the ride. Wise claims the symptoms escalated into symptoms of alleged traumatic brain injury in the following months. Wise’s counsel argued that Six Flags Magic Mountain should have responded after 44 other first aid incidents related to the Green Lantern rollercoaster and riders allegedly complaining of head-related symptoms.

The Defendant: Talia Wise v. Six Flags, et al.

The defendant in the case, Six Flags Magic Mountain, responded to arguments that no riders on the Green Lantern rollercoaster, including Wise, were subjected to g-forces that could have caused any brain injuries at any time. According to Six Flags Magic Mountain spokespersons and experts, Wise’s initial symptoms at the park resulted from dehydration, and the symptoms that developed over the following months resulted from underlying psychological issues. The legal team for Six Flags Magic Mountain also pointed out repeatedly that medical specialists hired by the plaintiff’s legal team failed to find any physical evidence of a brain injury. According to the Magic Mountain spokesperson, the safety of guests at Magic Mountain is one of the most important aspects of the Six Flags park operation. During the trial, park employees and experts presented information regarding the many safety tests and inspections in place to maintain visitor safety.

The Case: Talia Wise v. Six Flags, et al.

The plaintiff in the case sought approximately $34.7 million in damages. However, Six Flags Magic Mountain successfully argued that the medical records provided by the plaintiff contradicted her injury claims. They also pointed out to the jury that Wise led a productive life after visiting Magic Mountain, even gaining admission to several colleges post-high school. The trial began on August 4th. One day after hearing closing arguments, the Los Angeles jury rejected the plaintiff’s claims and the $34.7M in damages she sought. In a 10-2 decision, the jury found that Magic Mountain’s Green Lantern rollercoaster did not cause traumatic brain injuries to 13-year-old Talia Wise in 2015.

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