Woman Claims She Sustained Traumatic Brain Injury from Universal Studios Roller Coaster

In recent news, a couple, Geriann and Richard Clem filed a traumatic brain injury lawsuit against Universal Studios Development Partners, alleging a failure in their duty to safely maintain and operate one of their popular roller coaster rides.

The Case: Geriann and Richard Clem v. Universal Studios Development Partners

The Court: Circuit Court of Ninth Judicial Circuit, Orange County

The Case No.: 192961708

The Plaintiff: Geriann and Richard Clem v. Universal Studios Development Partners

The plaintiffs in the case, the Clems, filed a traumatic brain injury lawsuit after an incident that occurred at the Universal Studios Orlando theme park on February 11, 2023. During their time at the park, the plaintiff, Geriann, rode the Hollywood Rip Ride Rockit roller coaster, which travels at a top speed of 65mph and reaches a height of 167 feet. The roller coaster does not provide head restraints for riders. Geriann claims that her head shook violently and was repeatedly slammed against the headrest throughout the ride.

The Defendant: Geriann and Richard Clem v. Universal Studios Development Partners

The defendant in the case, Universal Studios Development Partners, is the owner/operator of Universal Studios Orlando theme park located at 1000 Universal Studios Plaza, Orlando, Florida, 32819. The plaintiffs allege that Universal Studios negligently operated, maintained, and controlled the Hollywood Rip Ride Rockit roller coaster and breached their duty of care to the plaintiff by failing to provide appropriate head restraints, failing to maintain the roller coaster in safe conditions, failing to correct unreasonably unsafe conditions, failing to provide adequate warning of danger, posting inadequate signs of potential harm outside the ride, and failing to provide proper safety precautions.

The Case: Geriann and Richard Clem v. Universal Studios Development Partners

The plaintiff in the case, Geriann and Richard Clem v. Universal Studios Development Partners, claims she suffered severe and permanent personal injuries and damages including a traumatic brain injury, pain, and suffering, disability, physical impairment, mental anguish, inconvenience, loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life in the past, loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life in the future; medical, nursing, and rehabilitation expenses in the past, medical nursing, and rehabilitation expenses in the future, lost wages in the past, and the capacity to earn money in the future. Geriann's husband, Richard Clem, also seeks damages for the loss of his wife's support, care, and consortium.

If you have questions about filing a California traumatic brain injury lawsuit, don't hesitate to contact 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.

Appeals Court Rules that Parents are Bound by Son’s Arbitration Agreement in Wrongful Death Claim

In recent news, a Los Angeles skilled nursing facility run by Silverscreen Healthcare was sued for wrongful death by the parents of a resident who died while in their care.

The Case: Holland v. Silverscreen Healthcare, Inc.

The Court: California Court of Appeals, Second District, Second Division

The Case No.: B323237

The Plaintiff: Holland v. Silverscreen Healthcare, Inc.

The plaintiffs in the case, Holland, originally filed for survivor claims and a wrongful death claim in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, alleging dependent adult abuse and negligence on behalf of their deceased son, Skyler. Silverscreen Healthcare, Inc. (dba Asistencia skilled nursing facility) moved to compel arbitration of the entire complaint, arguing there was an arbitration agreement between Skyler and Asistencia. The trial court granted Asistencia's motion for the survivor claims. However, they denied the motion for the wrongful death cause of action, stating that the parents did not have an enforceable arbitration agreement with Asistencia (relying heavily on Avila v. Southern California Specialty Care, Inc. (2018) 20 Cal. App.5th 835 (Avila)).

The Defendants: Holland v. Silverscreen Healthcare, Inc.

The defendant, Silverscreen Healthcare, Inc. (dba Asistencia), filed for appeal. arguing Ruiz v. Podolsky (2010) 50 Cal.4th 838 (Ruiz) sets a precedent and that the parents are bound by the arbitration agreement signed by their son, so the parents' wrongful death claim is also subject to arbitration. The appeals court agreed with Asistencia and found that under Ruiz and Code of Civil Procedure Section 1295, the parents' wrongful death claim must go to arbitration along with Skyler's survivor claims.

Do Medical Arbitration Agreements Apply to Wrongful Death Claims?

Ruiz addressed the following issue: "[W]hen a person seeking medical care contracts with a health care provider to resolve all medical malpractice claims through arbitration, does that agreement apply to the resolution of wrongful death claims when the claimants are not themselves signatory to the arbitration agreement?" (Ruiz, supra, 50 Cal.4th at p. 841.) In seeking an answer, Ruiz focused on the legal intent behind Section 1295 (part of the Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act of 1975 (MICRA). MICRA's goal of reducing costs in the resolution of malpractice claims encourages arbitration of medical malpractice disputes, stating, "...all medical malpractice claims, including wrongful death claims, may be subject to arbitration agreements between a health care provider and the patient." (Ruiz, supra, 50 Cal.4th at p. 841; see also id. at p. 843).

The Case: Holland v. Silverscreen Healthcare, Inc.

After Skyler's death on October 29, 2020, his parents filed a lawsuit alleging four causes of action against Asistencia: dependent adult abuse, negligence, violation of resident's rights, and wrongful death. The first three causes of action are survivor claims (Skyler's claims) brought by his mother, Holland. Holland filed survivor claims in her capacity as Skyler's successor in interest. Holland and Wayne bring the fourth cause of action for wrongful death as individuals. Silverscreen Healthcare, Inc. filed an appeal after the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (No. 22STCV01945) found that the parents did not have an enforceable arbitration agreement with Asistencia. On appeal, Michelle Williams Court, Judge, reversed the decision and remanded with directions.

If you have questions about how to file a California wrongful death lawsuit, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw L.L.P. 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.

NNT Express & Trytime Transport Face Allegations of Worker Misclassification

In recent news, NNT Express & Trytime Transport faces serious labor law violation allegations claiming they misclassified workers as independent contractors when they allegedly qualified to be classified as employees, potentially leading to significant legal consequences.

The Case: Clinton Simril and Eliaz Garcilazo v. NNT Express & Trytime Transport

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

The Case No.: 37-2024-00014517-CU-OE-CTL

The Plaintiffs: Clinton Simril and Eliaz Garcilazo v. NNT Express & Trytime Transport

The plaintiffs in the case, Clinton Simril and Eliaz Garcilazo, filed a class action complaint against NNT Express, Inc. and Trytime Transport, LLC ("NNT Express and Trytime Transport"), alleging misclassification of its employees as independent contractors. The plaintiffs filed on behalf of workers for NNT Express and Trytime Transport in California hired as independent contractors (from March 27, 2020, to the present).According to plaintiff allegations, the defendant violated the California Labor Code protections by allegedly misclassifying its California employees as independent contractors.

The Defendant: Clinton Simril and Eliaz Garcilazo v. NNT Express & Trytime Transport

The defendants in the case, NNT Express & Trytime Transport, hire California workers to provide truck driving services to their customers. According to the class action lawsuit, the company controlled and directed their "independent contractors" work by scheduling their hours, providing job site info, issuing written company policies, distributing procedures for job performance and workplace conduct, etc.

The Case: Clinton Simril and Eliaz Garcilazo v. NNT Express & Trytime Transport

Given the alleged practices of NNT Express & Trytime Transport in exerting significant control over the schedules, work details, and conduct of their truck drivers, these drivers arguably should not be classified as independent contractors but rather as employees. This distinction is critical under California labor law, particularly following standards set by the California Supreme Court's Dynamex decision and the subsequent Assembly Bill 5 (AB5), which codifies the "ABC" test for determining worker status. According to this test, a worker is considered an employee unless the employer can prove their worker is not being controlled or directed in the performance of their job duties, that the worker completes tasks outside the usual course of the employer's business, and is independently established as a trade, occupation or business. The behavior of NNT Express & Trytime Transport, as described by the plaintiffs, suggests a level of control that would generally qualify their workers as employees, which would entitle them to the protections and benefits of labor law such as minimum wage, overtime compensation, rest periods, and other working conditions guaranteed by state labor laws. This type of worker misclassification undermines the legal rights of workers and can leave California companies open to significant legal liabilities and penalties for California Labor Law violations. The plaintiffs claim that NNT Express and Trytime Transport violated California Labor Code Sections §§ 204, 210, 221, 226.7, 226.8, 510, 512, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198 & 2802 by failing to pay workers minimum wage and overtime wages, provide workers with meal periods and rest breaks, provide accurate, itemized wage statements, reimburse employees for necessary business expenses, and provide wages when they are due. The class action lawsuit, Clinton Simril and Eliaz Garcilazo v. NNT Express & Trytime Transport is currently pending in the San Diego County Superior Court of the State of California.

If you have questions about how to file a California Class Action 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.

WSH Management, Inc. Class Action Alleges Company Failed to Provide Overtime Pay

According to a recently filed California labor law complaint, WSH Management, Inc. failed to provide their employees with overtime wages, violating California Labor Law.

The Case: Judy Lee v. WSH Management, Inc.

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

The Case No.:24STCV10073

The Plaintiff: Judy Lee v. WSH Management, Inc.

The plaintiff in the case, Judy Lee, filed a class action complaint against WSH Management, Inc., claiming the company violated labor law when it failed to provide meal breaks and rest periods. As a non-exempt hourly employee, Lee worked for WSH Management, Inc. from December 13, 2023, to December 28, 2023. As a non-exempt hourly employee, Lee was entitled to legally required meal breaks and rest periods and the payment of minimum wage and overtime wages for all the hours she worked.

The Defendant: Judy Lee v. WSH Management, Inc.

The defendant, WSH Management, Inc., is a property management company operating out of California. The company faces numerous labor law violation allegations, including:

• pay minimum wages

• pay overtime wages

• provide required meal and rest periods

• reimburse for required business expenses

• provide accurate itemized wage statements

• provide wages when due

The allegations violate California Labor Code Sections §§ 201, 202, 203, 204, 210, 226.7, 510, 512, 558, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, and 2802.

The Case: Judy Lee v. WSH Management, Inc.

In the case Judy Lee v. WSH Management, Inc., the plaintiff alleges that standard practices and policies at WSH Management, Inc. were unlawful and failed to compensate employees for all time worked per labor law. According to the California class action lawsuit, WSH Management's employees allegedly could not take their off-duty meal breaks, and often, they weren't completely relieved of job duties and work responsibilities during their rest periods. Failing to provide the required meal breaks and rest periods violates labor law.

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

Did Medical Management International, Inc. Fail to Reimburse Employees for Work Expenses?

In recent news, a California lawsuit alleges that Medical Management International, Inc. violated labor law when they failed to reimburse employees for necessary work expenses.

The Case: Amber Wolfing v. Medical Management International, Inc.

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

The Case No.: 24CV007705

The Plaintiff: Amber Wolfing v. Medical Management International, Inc.

Amber Wolfing, who was engaged as a non-exempt hourly employee by the defendant in August 2019, initiated a class action lawsuit against Medical Management International. She claims that the company's illegal policies and practices resulted in the failure to adequately compensate their employees, as required by labor law.

The Defendant: Amber Wolfing v. Medical Management International, Inc.

Medical Management International, Inc., which offers veterinary healthcare services across California, is the defendant in the case brought by the plaintiff, Amber Wolfing. Wolfing alleges that during her employment, she was compelled to work during her off-duty meal breaks and also before shifts, performing mandatory COVID checks and temperature screenings without pay. Additionally, she contends that the company habitually engaged in "rounding" employees' clock-in and clock-out times in a manner that consistently benefited the employer, consequently leading to underpayment for the actual hours worked by employees.

What is "Time Worked" According to California Labor Law?

Under California labor law, "time worked" is defined as any period during which an employee remains under an employer's control, encompassing all instances where the employee is either actively working or is allowed to work, regardless of necessity. Instances of "time worked" include:

• Periods when the employee is on duty, present on the employer's premises, or stationed at a designated work location.

• Times when the employee is allowed to work, even if they are not engaging in their primary job functions.

• Moments when the employee must remain on the employer's premises or at a specific location controlled by the employer, which limits their ability to engage in personal activities.

This broad definition ensures that employees in California receive compensation for all time spent under employer directives, not limited to just productive work time. It includes time spent waiting, on standby, traveling under certain conditions, and performing other duties as dictated by the job and level of control exercised by the employer. This approach guarantees that workers are paid for all the time their freedom is restricted by job requirements.

The Case: Amber Wolfing v. Medical Management International, Inc.

Amber Wolfing alleges that due to the routine practice of rounding employee work hours at Medical Management International, Inc., she, along with other members of the class action in California, were deprived of their rightful minimum wage, overtime compensation, and legally mandated meal breaks, contrary to both federal and California Labor Laws. She argues that the defendant's failure to compensate employees for all hours worked is demonstrable through the company's own business records. The case, Amber Wolfing v. Medical Management International, Inc., is presently active in the Solano County Superior Court in California.

If you have questions about filing an employment law lawsuit, please 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.

PAGA-Only Action: Axlehire, Inc. Faces Multiple California Labor Code Violation Allegations

In recent news, a PAGA-only action alleges Axlehire engaged in multiple California labor code violations.

The Case: Pablo Acosta and Colleen Duarte v. Axlehire Inc.

The Court: Alameda County Superior Court

The Case No.: 23CV055896

The Plaintiffs: Pablo Acosta and Colleen Duarte v. Axlehire Inc.

The plaintiffs in the case, Pablo Acosta and Colleen Duarte, filed a lawsuit against Axlehire, Inc., alleging the companies violated the Labor Code.

The Defendant: Pablo Acosta and Colleen Duarte v. Axlehire Inc.

The defendant in the case, Axlehire Inc., faces allegations of multiple labor code violations. The company allegedly failed to provide workers with legally required meal breaks and rest periods. From time to time, employees were required to work more than four hours without a ten-minute break, as employers are required to provide employees according to labor law.

California Wage Order Requires Employers to Offer Employees Off-Duty Rest Periods:

California mandates that employers provide their employees with a ten-minute off-duty break for every four hours of work. The California Supreme Court defines an "off-duty rest period" as a time during which employees are not only relieved from their work responsibilities but are also free from any control exerted by their employer.

The Case: Pablo Acosta and Colleen Duarte v. Axlehire Inc.

This lawsuit is classified as a PAGA-only action, wherein the State of California leverages such suits to uphold state labor laws by allowing employees to act as representatives or proxies of state labor law enforcement agencies. Under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA), pursuing penalties is fundamentally a regulatory enforcement action aimed at safeguarding public interests rather than securing private benefits. Through PAGA, employees like the plaintiffs in this case, Acosta and Duarte, are essentially empowered to act as private attorneys general to address and penalize non-compliance with the California Labor Code. Their suit, which seeks penalties for alleged violations by Axlehire, is currently under consideration in the Alameda County Superior Court.

If you have questions about filing a California overtime 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.

Did SpaceX Foster Gender Discrimination and Serial Sexual Abuse?

In recent news, a former SpaceX employee claims that SpaceX fostered gender discrimination and rampant sexual abuse of female employees.

The Case: Michelle Dopak v. SpaceX

The Court: California Superior Court, County of Los Angeles

The Case No.: 24ST CV05506

The Plaintiff: Michelle Dopak v. SpaceX

The plaintiff in the case, Michelle Dopak, is a former SpaceX employee. Hired in 2017, Dopak worked as a Production Coordinator. During her time with the company, Dopak resided in Los Angeles County. Dopak claims during her time working for the defendant, she experienced rampant sexual discrimination, including being passed over for well-deserved promotions, being denied amenities at work that were offered to others, etc. Complaints regarding the situation and rampant rumors being spread about female workers allegedly resulted in no effective action. According to the plaintiff, the initially difficult situation escalated to a male supervisor requiring sexual favors in exchange for job security and promotion opportunities. In addition, the plaintiff claims women who did receive job opportunities or promotions were offered pay significantly lower than their male counterparts. Eventually, Dopak was allegedly coerced by a married supervisor into a sexual relationship that resulted in a pregnancy. When Dopak told her supervisor of the pregnancy, he allegedly offered her $100,000 to get an abortion. When she didn’t take the offer, he then made every attempt to evade child-support payments. Dopak claims the company higher-ups assisted him in his efforts in an attempt to silence her.

The Defendant: Michelle Dopak v. SpaceX

SpaceX, the defendant in this lawsuit, was established in 2002 by Elon Musk with the ambitious objective of making space travel more affordable and establishing a sustainable colony on Mars. The company, known for manufacturing and operating the Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy rockets, as well as the Dragon and Starship spacecraft, is now facing allegations in the Dopak v. SpaceX case. The lawsuit accuses SpaceX of sexual harassment, gender discrimination, workplace retaliation, and disability-based discrimination. The plaintiff, Dopak, alleges that after returning from a medical leave taken in September 2022 due to workplace harassment and emotional distress, she was subjected to excessively long and unreasonable work hours by her new supervisor.

The Case: Michelle Dopak v. SpaceX

In the case documents, Dopak claims that SpaceX higher-ups retaliated against her for reporting sexual harassment and gender discrimination. Dopak filed the lawsuit in California Superior Court on Tuesday (March 5, 2024). Dopak and two other female SpaceX colleagues took their concerns regarding the sexual harassment and gender discrimination to SpaceX President Gwynne Shotwell in August 2018, but saw no responding action or investigation to resolve the situation. The Dopak v. SpaceX lawsuit is one of several making similar claims against the company. Another recent employment lawsuit claims the company discriminated against refugees or asylum recipients seeking employment. In October 2023, a former SpaceX engineer filed a proposed class action lawsuit claiming gender discrimination and discrimination against minorities.

If you are considering pursuing a workplace discrimination lawsuit in California, contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP for guidance. Their team of seasoned employment law attorneys is available to assist you from their offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.