Did Lax Security Protocols Result in the Death of Concert Attendees?

In recent news, two nurses attending an EDM festival were allegedly killed by another concert attendee, even though security measures in place should have prohibited him from having a weapon on site.

The Case: Bautista-Perez v. Juul Labs

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

The Case No.: 20-cv-01613-HSG

The Plaintiff: Bautista-Perez v. Juul Labs

The plaintiff in the case, Bautista-Perez, initiated a lawsuit in March 2020 against the Defendants Juul and Coalition, alleging that these entities were their legal employers and they failed to adhere to various state and federal labor laws. The plaintiffs argued that Juul employees had control over their wages, hours, and working conditions and that they were supervised partly by Coalition employees, establishing an employer-employee relationship. They claimed that the defendants did not provide compliant pay statements, failed to pay for all hours worked, and did not issue immediate payment upon discharge. Their legal action included claims under the California Labor Code and FLSA. Later, they expanded their claims to include penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA). Despite the court initially denying the defendants' motions to compel arbitration and dismissing Juul's motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint with leave to amend, the plaintiffs persisted by filing a Second Amended Complaint to continue pressing their allegations and seeking redress for the claimed labor law violations.

The Defendant: Bautista-Perez v. Juul Labs

The defendant in the case, Juul Labs, is a foreign stock corporation known for manufacturing electronic cigarettes, found itself entangled in legal proceedings stemming from its involvement in the Yes on C Campaign during San Francisco's November 5, 2019, municipal election. The campaign aimed to pass Proposition C, which sought to overturn a local ordinance that suspended the sale of e-cigarettes. To manage this campaign, Juul contracted Long Ying International, Inc., a San Francisco-based campaign operator led by CEO David Ho. Long Ying and Ho then employed approximately 365 workers, including the named plaintiffs, to carry out canvassing, phone banking, and administrative tasks. These workers, classified as independent contractors, were required to sign a standard independent contractor agreement. The lawsuit brought against Juul and its associates centers on allegations that Juul, by exerting control over the campaign workers' wages, hours, and working conditions, effectively acted as their employer, thereby violating multiple state and federal labor laws, including failures in providing compliant pay statements and ensuring payment for all hours worked.

The Case: Bautista-Perez v. Juul Labs

In the lawsuit involving Juul Labs, Inc., centered on its management of the Yes on C Campaign and the subsequent employment practices, plaintiffs accused Juul and Coalition of misclassifying campaign workers as independent contractors, among other violations of state and federal labor laws. The legal proceedings saw the plaintiffs moving to conditionally certify the class while Juul and Coalition sought dismissal of the Second Amended Complaint (SAC). The court, however, denied the dismissal motions and granted conditional class certification. In an effort to resolve the matter, the court stayed the proceedings in June 2021 to facilitate mediation, which led to a settlement in August 2021. The settlement agreement, preliminarily approved in February 2022, was finalized with the court granting final approval to a $1.75 million settlement. This amount included $400,000 in penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA), $525,000 for attorneys' fees, $14,568.49 for litigation costs, and service awards totaling $17,000 for the three named plaintiffs. The resolution marked the conclusion of the dispute, with the court directing the parties to implement the settlement terms and file a stipulated final judgment.

California Nurses Face Significant Risks of Misclassification:

The resolution of the lawsuit involving Juul Labs and its campaign workers underscores a broader legal issue prevalent in California—misclassification of workers. This challenge extends significantly to the healthcare sector, particularly nurses. The case of Juul, where workers were misclassified as independent contractors despite performing roles akin to regular employees, mirrors the risks that nurses face across the state. Nurses, often hired as independent contractors by healthcare facilities, find themselves in precarious positions without the full benefits and protections afforded to regular employees, such as overtime pay, health benefits, and workers' compensation. This legal precedent highlights the ongoing issues of labor misclassification and serves as a crucial reminder for healthcare institutions to evaluate their employment practices carefully. Correctly classifying workers is essential for legal compliance and protecting the rights and well-being of nurses, who are vital to the functioning of California's healthcare system.

If you have questions about filing 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.

AC Pro and Material Supply Faces Allegations They Failed to Pay Overtime Pay

In recent news, AC Pro and Material Supply faced allegations they failed to comply with overtime pay requirements in violation of labor law.

The Case: Alsha Jackson v. AC Pro Inc.

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

The Case No.: CIVSB2407304

The Plaintiff: Alsha Jackson v. AC Pro Inc.

Alsha Jackson, the plaintiff in the case, filed a class action complaint against AC Pro Inc. and Material Supply Inc. (from now on, collectively, "AC Pro and Material Supply Inc."). According to the lawsuit, the company allegedly failed to provide meal and rest breaks following labor laws.

The Defendant: Alsha Jackson v. AC Pro Inc.

The defendant in the case, AC Pro Inc., is a family-owned heating and air conditioning distributor with many locations throughout Southern California, Southern Nevada, and Arizona. In addition to its distribution locations, the company manufactures custom metal parts from two plants - one in California. According to the lawsuit, AC Pro and Material Supply Inc. allegedly violated multiple California Labor Codes (including Sections §§ 201, 202, 203, 204, 210, 226.7, 510, 512, 558 , 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, and 2802). The allegations include:

  • Failing to Pay Minimum Wage

  • Failing to Pay for Overtime Hours

  • Failing to Provide rest periods and meal breaks

  • Failing to Provide Wages When Due

  • Failing to Provide Itemized Wage Statements

  • Failing to Reimburse Workers for Business Expenses

Which California Workers Are in Danger of Wage Theft?

Any California worker can be a victim of wage theft. Still, the workers most likely to become victims of wage theft often work in restaurants, construction, the hospitality industry, car washes, farming, nail salons, warehousing, or the clothing industry. These are the same industries that were most gravely affected during the pandemic, leaving workers in these industries vulnerable to the losses that can occur when employers engage in overtime pay violations or minimum wage violations. For example, workers lost almost $2 billion from unpaid minimum wage in 2015 (according to the Economic Policy Institute, a left-leaning think tank).

The Case: Alsha Jackson v. AC Pro Inc.

The class action lawsuit, Alsha Jackson v. AC Pro Inc., is currently pending in the San Bernardino County Superior Court of the State of California.

If you have questions about filing a California overtime lawsuit, don't hesitate to contact 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 USA Waste of California, Inc. Employees Receive Inaccurate Wages?

In recent news, USA Waste of California, Inc. has faced allegations that it failed to provide its employees with accurate wages.

The Case: Justin Diridoni v. USA Waste of California, Inc.

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

The Case No.: 24CV002366

The Plaintiff: Justin Diridoni v. USA Waste of California, Inc.

The plaintiff in the case, Justin Diridoni, filed a class action complaint alleging that USA Waste of California, Inc. violated the California Labor Code.

The Defendants: Justin Diridoni v. USA Waste of California, Inc.

The defendant, USA Waste of California, Inc., faces numerous allegations of labor law violations, including:

  • Failing to pay minimum wages

  • Failing to pay overtime wages

  • Failing to provide legally required meal and rest periods

  • Failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements

  • Failing to reimburse for required expenses

  • Failing to pay sick wages

  • Failing to pay wages when due

The alleged allegations would be a violation of California Labor Code Sections 201-203, 226, 226.7, 233, 246, 510, 512, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 2802, and the applicable Wage Order(s). Such alleged conduct could give rise to civil penalties.

The Case: Justin Diridoni v. USA Waste of California, Inc.

According to case documents, USA Waste of California, Inc. workers were allegedly not granted the required ten-minute rest periods when working longer than four hours. Claims also indicate that on certain occasions, employees were mandated to work shifts exceeding five hours without being afforded a meal break, as per company policy. Consequently, these employees missed out on their meal breaks without receiving extra pay, following what is alleged to be the standard policy and practice of the defendant. The class action lawsuit, Justin Diridoni v. USA Waste of California, Inc., is currently pending in the Sacramento County Superior Court of the State of California.

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

Hunt Construction Group, Inc. Facing a Lawsuit Claiming Wage Statement Violations

In recent news, Hunt Construction Group, Inc. allegedly failed to comply with labor law by providing workers with accurate itemized wage statements.

The Case: Ruben Almader v. Hunt Construction Group, Inc.

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

The Case No.: 24STCV09121

The Plaintiffs: Ruben Almader v. Hunt Construction Group, Inc.

Ruben Almader is the lead plaintiff in a lawsuit against Hunt Construction Group, Inc., where he claims the company committed multiple violations of California Labor Codes. The allegations include:

  • Failing to pay minimum and overtime wages.

  • Not providing required meal and rest breaks.

  • Inaccurate wage statements.

  • Not reimbursing necessary expenses.

Additionally, the lawsuit asserts that Hunt Construction did not pay sick wages or wages when due, actions that could lead to significant civil penalties under state law.

The Defendant: Ruben Almader v. Hunt Construction Group, Inc.

The defendant in the case, Hunt Construction Group, is implicated for allegedly failing to comply with California Labor Code § 226, which mandates that employers provide accurate and itemized wage statements to their employees. The lawsuit claims that the wage statements issued by Hunt Construction did not include essential details such as the applicable hourly rates, total hours worked, and the pay period during which the wages were earned. This omission has led to allegations that the company did not fulfill its legal obligations regarding employee wage documentation.

What Is An Accurate Itemized Wage Statement?

The requirements for an accurate itemized wage statement are stipulated by California Labor Code Section 226. The following details must be listed clearly to comply with state law and ensure full transparency for the employee:

1. Employee info: Name and SSN (last four digits) or an employee ID number

2. Employer info: legal name and address

3. Wages earned during the pay period (both Net and Gross)

4. Any hourly rates used to pay the employee during the current pay period

5. Total hours worked by the employee (unless the employee is salaried/exempt) and their applicable hourly rate

6. Any applicable piece rate and the number of units (if the employee is paid on a piece-rate scale)

7. All deductions from the wages

8. The current pay period

The Case: Ruben Almader v. Hunt Construction Group, Inc.

The class action lawsuit, Ruben Almader v. Hunt Construction Group, Inc., is currently pending in the Los Angeles County Superior Court of the State of California.

If you believe you may be a potential plaintiff in a similar case or have questions about filing an employment law lawsuit, please don't hesitate to contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Their 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, empowering you to take action.

Mainspring Energy, Inc. Employees Make California Labor Law Violation Allegations

According to a recently filed California labor law complaint, Mainspring Energy, Inc. allegedly violated labor law by failing to reimburse employees for the cost of using their cell phones to perform their job duties.

The Case: Edward Young v. Mainspring Energy, Inc.

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

The Case No.:24-CIV-01894

The Plaintiff: Edward Young v. Mainspring Energy, Inc.

The plaintiff in the case, Edward Young, filed a class action complaint alleging that Mainspring Energy, Inc. violated multiple California Labor Codes. These violations include failing to pay minimum and overtime wages, not providing legally mandated meal and rest periods, and not reimbursing employees for necessary business expenses like using personal cellular phones for work. Young's case highlights systemic issues within Mainspring Energy concerning the treatment of employees and adherence to state labor laws, seeking civil penalties for these infractions.

The Defendant: Edward Young v. Mainspring Energy, Inc.

The defendant, Mainspring Energy, Inc., is a corporation doing business in California providing clean energy. The plaintiff, Edward Young, was hired as a non-exempt hourly employee for Mainspring Energy, Inc. in September 2021.

The Case: Edward Young v. Mainspring Energy, Inc.

While employed at Mainspring Energy, Inc., Young, and other similarly situated employees were allegedly required to use their cell phones to complete their job duties. Since California Labor Code 2802 expressly states that "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..." the plaintiff argues they are violating labor law. Edward Young v. Mainspring Energy, Inc., a class action lawsuit, is currently pending in the San Mateo County Superior Court of the State of California.

If you believe you may be a potential plaintiff in a similar case or have questions about filing an employment law lawsuit, please don't hesitate to get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Their 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, empowering you to take action.

Will Walmart Settle their Unpaid Overtime Suit with California Workers?

In recent news, a California judge considered a revamped $2.25 million unpaid overtime settlement.

The Case: Juan Garcia v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., et al.

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

The Case No.: 5:16-cv-01645-BRO-RAO

The Plaintiff: Juan Garcia v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., et al.

The plaintiff in the case, Juan Garcia, initially filed a proposed class action complaint against Wal-Mart Stores in May 2016, alleging that the company did not provide a second meal break for shifts over 10 hours as required by labor law. Garcia also claimed he did not voluntarily waive his missed meal breaks and that Walmart did not obtain Garcia’s signature on any lawful meal break waivers. According to Garcia, a documented policy denied Walmart Logistics employees their second meal period.

The Defendant: Juan Garcia v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., et al.

The defendant in the case, Walmart Stores, holds the title of the largest retailer globally, with a staggering valuation of $218 billion. This retail giant operates 3,250 stores across the U.S. and employs approximately 1 million individuals. Currently, in 2024, about 39 class-action lawsuits are active against Walmart in 30 states, ranging from California to New York. These lawsuits collectively involve several hundred thousand employees pursuing claims for tens of millions of dollars in unpaid wages. Previously, Walmart resolved two comparable cases regarding overtime payments in Colorado and New Mexico.

The Case: Juan Garcia v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., et al.

In the motion for preliminary approval, over 1700 Walmart workers hoped for a resolution. The first motion to approve the settlement in September was denied, with the court pointing out deficiencies. The first allocation method did not fairly compensate the employees. The skewed compensation structure favored part-timers because it relied on weeks worked instead of hours worked. In the recent motion for preliminary approval, Walmart workers said they corrected the allocation method to address the deficiency.

If you have questions about how to file an overtime lawsuit, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced California 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 GT Independence Services, LLC Violate Labor Law?

In recent news, GT Independence Services, LLC has faced allegations that it violated labor law by failing to reimburse its employees.

The Case: Annabelle Cruz v. GT Independence Services, LLC

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

The Case No.: 37-2024-00014402-CU-OE-CT

The Plaintiff: Annabelle Cruz v. GT Independence Services, LLC

The plaintiff in the case, Annabelle Cruz, filed a class action complaint alleging that GT Independence Services, LLC violated the California Labor Code. Annabelle Cruz is the plaintiff in a lawsuit against GT Independence Services, LLC, where it is alleged that employees were not given ten-minute rest periods for every four hours worked, as required. The lawsuit also claims that employees, including Cruz, were compelled to work shifts longer than five hours without the mandated meal breaks, violating company policy without additional compensation. Furthermore, Cruz and other class members were reportedly not reimbursed for necessary business expenses, such as using personal cellular phones for work-related activities, contrary to California Labor Code 2802.

According to the lawsuit filed, GT Independence Services, LLC employees were, allegedly, from time to time, unable to work in excess of four (4) hours without being provided ten (10) minute rest periods. Additionally, employees were allegedly required from time to time to perform work as ordered by the company for more than five (5) hours during some shifts without receiving a meal break. As a result, employees forfeited meal breaks without additional compensation, according to Defendant's corporate policy and practice.

GT Independence Services, LLC also allegedly failed to reimburse employees for required business expenses. California Labor Code 2802 states that "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..." During employment, Plaintiff and other California Class Members were allegedly required to use their cellular phones as a result of, and in furtherance of, their job duties.

The Defendant: Annabelle Cruz v. GT Independence Services, LLC

The defendant in the case, GT Independence Services, LLC, specializes in facilitating self-directed care for individuals with disabilities, enabling them to manage their own care and hire support staff of their choosing. As an employer, GT Independence focuses on providing supportive work environments but has faced allegations regarding labor practices, including issues with rest periods and reimbursement policies.

The Case: Annabelle Cruz v. GT Independence Services, LLC

The case Annabelle Cruz v. GT Independence Services, LLC is currently pending in the Santa Clara County Superior Court of the State of California.

If you have questions about filing an employment law 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.