Family Files Wrongful Death Lawsuit in Response to Bar Employee's Death

In 2025, the widow of a Texas bar employee filed a wrongful death lawsuit after her husband was killed outside his workplace. The lawsuit alleges that Oak Texas Bar and Grill, LLC, and one of its patrons, John Anthony Saenz, are responsible for the preventable death of employee Juan Nava Hernandez, who was fatally struck in the bar’s parking lot by an intoxicated driver who had just been over-served alcohol inside the establishment.

Case: Cynthia Rodriguez, Individually and as Surviving Spouse of Juan Nava Hernandez, Deceased v. John Anthony Saenz and Oak Texas Bar & Grill, LLC

Court: Hidalgo County District Court (Texas)

Case No.: C-3997-25-1

The Plaintiff in the Case is Cynthia Rodriguez

Cynthia Rodriguez, the surviving spouse of Juan Nava Hernandez, filed the wrongful death lawsuit individually and on behalf of her late husband’s estate. According to the complaint, on August 1, 2025, Hernandez was performing his job duties—taking out the trash behind the bar—when he was struck and killed by John Anthony Saenz, a customer who had just been served alcohol at Oak Texas Bar and Grill despite being visibly intoxicated. The lawsuit alleges that the bar’s decision to continue serving Saenz alcohol in violation of Texas law directly led to Hernandez’s death. Rodriguez seeks justice for her late husband and compensation for the emotional and financial devastation his loss caused.

The Defendant: Rodriguez v. Oak Texas Bar & Grill, LLC

Oak Texas Bar and Grill, LLC, along with patron John Anthony Saenz, is named as a defendant in the lawsuit. The complaint accuses the bar of negligence and gross negligence for overserving alcohol to an obviously intoxicated individual who later caused the death of one of its own employees. According to case documentation there is incriminating video evidence that shows Saenz driving recklessly through the parking, striking Hernandez, and fatally pinning him against a cinderblock wall. The plaintiffs in the case argue tht the bar failed to protect its employee from foreseeable harm, and that their failure resulted in a fatal tragedy.

A History of the Case: Rodriguez v. Oak Texas Bar & Grill, LLC

The wrongful death complaint was filed in August 2025 in the Hidalgo County District Court. The case seeks monetary relief in excess of $1 million for wrongful death, negligence, gross negligence, and survival claims. Rodriguez seeks damages for loss of financial support, loss of companionship, mental anguish, funeral and burial expenses, and exemplary damages intended to punish and deter similar misconduct. The case remains pending.

The Main Question Being Considered: Rodriguez v. Oak Texas Bar & Grill, LLC

The central question before the court is whether Oak Texas Bar and Grill acted negligently and unlawfully by serving alcohol to an obviously intoxicated customer who later caused the death of an employee.

FAQ: Rodriguez v. Oak Texas Bar & Grill, LLC

Q: What happened in the Oak Texas Bar & Grill wrongful death case?

A: The lawsuit alleges that employee Juan Nava Hernandez was fatally struck by a drunk patron who had just been over-served alcohol at the bar, despite being visibly intoxicated.

Q: Who filed the lawsuit?

A: The lawsuit was filed by Cynthia Rodriguez, the surviving spouse of Hernandez, on behalf of herself and her late husband’s estate.

Q: What are the allegations against the bar?

A: The complaint alleges negligence, gross negligence, and violations of Texas liquor laws for serving alcohol to an obviously intoxicated individual who later caused a fatal accident.

Q: What damages are being sought?

A: Rodriguez seeks damages exceeding $1 million for loss of financial

If you need help filing a wrongful death lawsuit, please reach out to Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced California wrongful death attorneys are ready to help at offices in Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Riverside, and Chicago.

Wage & Hour Violations: Did La Mesa Healthcare Center Violation Labor Law?

In 2025, La Mesa Healthcare Center was named in a representative action lawsuit filed in San Diego County Superior Court. The lawsuit alleges that the company violated multiple provisions of the California Labor Code by failing to pay employees for all hours worked and by issuing inaccurate wage statements.

Case: Najee Ellick v. La Mesa Healthcare Center

Court: San Diego County Superior Court (California)

Case No.: 25CU032683C

The Plaintiff: Ellick v. La Mesa Healthcare Center

Najee Ellick filed the representative action on behalf of current and former employees of La Mesa Healthcare Center, alleging that the company failed to compensate workers for all time properly worked and did not provide legally compliant wage statements.

The Defendant: Ellick v. La Mesa Healthcare Center

La Mesa Healthcare Center is operated by Elm Holdings, LLC. The company provides healthcare and rehabilitation services in and around San Diego, California. According to the lawsuit, the company failed to comply with California’s strict wage and hour requirements, including:

1. itemized wage statements

2. payment of wages due upon separation

3. accurate overtime pay

4. legally compliant rest periods and meal breaks

A History of the Case: Ellick v. La Mesa Healthcare Center

Filed in September 2025, the lawsuit remains pending in San Diego County Superior Court. The plaintiffs seek civil penalties and restitution on behalf of the affected employees for violations of the California Labor Code. The complaint alleges violations of Labor Code Sections 201, 202, 203, 204, 210, 226, 226.7, 510, 512, 558, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, and 2802. If proven, the claims could result in significant financial penalties and required changes to the company’s wage reporting and timekeeping practices.

The Main Question Being Considered: Ellick v. La Mesa Healthcare Center

The court will determine whether the company’s payroll practices reflect isolated administrative errors or a broader pattern of systemic noncompliance affecting multiple employees.

Why This Case Matters: Ellick v. La Mesa Healthcare Center

If proven, the allegations could expose ongoing wage and record keeping violations within the healthcare industry; a sector that employs large numbers of hourly and shift-based workers across California. This case highlights the importance of accurate wage documentation and transparent pay practices. For employees, it reinforces that employers are required by law to issue complete, itemized wage statements and pay for all hours worked, including overtime and time spent under employer control.

FAQ: Ellick v. La Mesa Healthcare Center

Q: What laws are cited in the complaint?

A: The lawsuit references California Labor Code Sections 201, 202, 203, 204, 210, 226, 226.7, 510, 512, 558, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, and 2802, which regulate wages, overtime, breaks, and expense reimbursements.

Q: What is a representative action?

A: A representative action allows an employee to bring a lawsuit on behalf of other current or former employees who were allegedly affected by the same labor code violations.

Q: Why are wage statements important under California law?

A: Labor Code Section 226 requires employers to provide detailed, accurate pay stubs showing total hours worked, pay rates, and deductions. Failing to provide compliant wage statements can result in penalties.

Q: What relief does the lawsuit seek?

A: The plaintiffs seek civil penalties, restitution, and attorneys’ fees for alleged wage and hour violations.

If you have questions about California labor law, filing a California class action, or wage and hour violations, contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to help at offices in Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Riverside, and Chicago.

Southern California Edison Class Action: Does the California Employer Require Off-the-Clock Work?

In 2025, Southern California Edison Company was named in a class-action lawsuit. The suit alleged that the company violated multiple provisions of the California Labor Code by requiring employees to work off the clock, failing to provide off-duty meal and rest periods, and not compensating workers for all time worked.

Case: Michelle Pottenger v. Southern California Edison Company

Court: Los Angeles County Superior Court (California)

Case No.: 25STCV26455

The Plaintiff: Pottenger v. Southern California Edison Company

Michelle Pottenger filed the lawsuit in Los Angeles County Superior Court on behalf of herself and other eligible class members. The plaintiff alleges that the company’s scheduling and workload expectations required employees to perform tasks "off the clock," depriving them of earned wages, and resulting in inaccurate wage statements, unpaid overtime, and failure to reimburse for work-related expenses.

The Defendant: Pottenger v. Southern California Edison Company

Southern California Edison Company is one of the largest electric utility providers in California. The company is responsible for delivering power to millions of California residents. According to the lawsuit, the company exercised significant control over its employees’ schedules and daily tasks but failed to fully compensate them for time spent under its direction and control. The complaint alleges that employees were required to remain on duty during breaks or continue working off the clock before or after their scheduled shifts. As a result, they were denied compliant meal and rest periods and were not paid premium wages for those missed breaks as required under the California Labor Code.

A History of the Case: Pottenger v. Southern California Edison Company

The class action lawsuit was filed in September 2025 and remains pending before the Los Angeles County Superior Court. The plaintiffs in the case seek class certification on behalf of all non-exempt employees who worked for Southern California Edison Company during the applicable statutory period. The lawsuit alleges violations of California Labor Code Sections 201, 202, 203, 204, 210, 226, 226.7, 510, 512, 558, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, and 2802. The plaintiffs are seeking recovery of unpaid wages, statutory penalties, restitution, and attorneys’ fees.

The Main Question Being Considered: Pottenger v. Southern California Edison Company

The main question before the court is whether Southern California Edison violated California’s wage and hour laws by requiring employees to perform work off-the-clock and by failing to provide lawful, off-duty meal and rest periods. The court will determine whether the company’s practices constituted a pattern of systemic labor violations and whether employees were entitled to additional compensation for the time they spent performing job duties outside their recorded hours.

Why This Case Matters: Pottenger v. Southern California Edison Company

The case highlights ongoing wage and hour compliance issues in California’s utility and energy industries, where employees often face demanding workloads and strict operational schedules. The case emphasizes that even large, established corporations must ensure employees receive full compensation for every minute worked and that meal and rest periods are truly off-duty, as required by state law.

FAQ: More About the Southern California Edison Lawsuit

Q: What is the Southern California Edison lawsuit about?

A: The lawsuit alleges that employees were required to perform work off-the-clock before and after shifts and during meal breaks, resulting in unpaid wages and missed rest periods.

Q: What laws are at issue in the case?

A: The lawsuit cites alleged violations of California Labor Code Sections 201, 202, 203, 204, 210, 226, 226.7, 510, 512, 558, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, and 2802, which govern payment of wages, overtime, breaks, and reimbursement of work-related expenses.

Q: What does “off-the-clock work” mean under California law?

A: When discusssing in connection with employment law, off-the-clock work refers to any time an employee is required to perform job duties outside of their paid hours. California law requires employers to compensate workers for all time they are under the employer’s control.

Q: What is the lawsuit seeking?

A: The plaintiffs seek unpaid wages, penalties, restitution, and attorneys’ fees.

Q: Why is this case significant?

A: It underscores that California’s wage and hour protections apply to all industries, including large utility companies, and that employers must accurately track and pay for every hour worked.

If you have questions about California labor law, filing a California class action, or wage and hour violations, contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to help at offices in Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Riverside, and Chicago.

Culinary Specialties Faces Class Action Over Denied Meal Breaks and Wage Violations

In 2025, Culinary Specialties, Inc. was named in a class-action lawsuit filed in the San Diego County Superior Court. The complaint alleges that the company violated multiple provisions of the California Labor Code by failing to provide employees with lawful, off-duty meal breaks and by failing to provide full compensation for time worked.

Case: Erika Montoro v. Culinary Specialties, Inc.

Court: San Diego County Superior Court (California)

Case No.: 25CU046725N

The Plaintiff: Montoro v. Culinary Specialties, Inc.

Erika Montoro filed the lawsuit on behalf of herself and other current and former employees, alleging that Culinary Specialties failed to provide required off-duty meal periods and did not pay premium wages when those breaks were missed or interrupted. According to the complaint, employees were routinely required to work more than five hours without receiving an uninterrupted 30-minute meal period, and some were denied a second meal period during shifts exceeding ten hours. The plaintiffs also claim that workers were required to remain "on call" during meal periods, forcing them to stay available for work-related duties and thus preventing them from fully discharging their job responsibilities.

The Defendant: Montoro v. Culinary Specialties, Inc.

Culinary Specialties, Inc. operates as a food production and manufacturing company based in Southern California. The lawsuit alleges that the company's policies and scheduling practices violate several sections of the California Labor Code, including those governing wages, meal periods, and reimbursement of expenses. Employees were allegedly required to remain on duty or subject to employer control throughout their shifts, including during designated meal breaks. The complaint further alleges that Culinary Specialties failed to compensate workers with the additional hour of premium pay required under Labor Code Section 226.7 for each day a compliant meal period was not provided.

A History of the Case: Montoro v. Culinary Specialties, Inc.

Filed in September 2025, the class action is still pending in the San Diego County Superior Court. The plaintiff seeks class certification on behalf of all non-exempt employees who worked for Culinary Specialties during the statutory period. The lawsuit alleges violations of Labor Code Sections 201, 202, 203, 204, 210, 226.7, 510, 512, 558, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, 1198.5, and 2802. Plaintiffs seek unpaid wages, statutory penalties, restitution, and attorneys' fees.

The Main Question Being Considered: Montoro v. Culinary Specialties, Inc.

The primary question before the court is whether Culinary Specialties violated California's meal-period laws by requiring employees to remain on duty during their "off duty" meal breaks or by interrupting those breaks for work-related tasks. The court will determine whether the company's practices effectively denied employees their legally mandated off-duty meal periods and whether failure to provide additional compensation constituted a systemic violation of California wage and hour statutes.

FAQ: Montoro v. Culinary Specialties, Inc.

Q: What does the Culinary Specialties lawsuit claim?

A: The lawsuit alleges that employees were required to remain on duty or available for work during meal breaks, were denied a second meal period on longer shifts, and were not paid premium wages for missed breaks.

Q: What labor laws are at issue?

A: The complaint cites California Labor Code Sections 201, 202, 203, 204, 210, 226.7, 510, 512, 558, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, 1198.5, and 2802, which govern pay, breaks, and reimbursement of expenses.

Q: What is an "off-duty" meal period?

A: An off-duty meal period means the employee is fully relieved of all job duties and free to leave the work area. If the employee remains under employer control, the meal period is not considered compliant.

Q: What relief are the plaintiffs seeking?

A: They seek unpaid wages, premium pay for missed meal breaks, penalties, restitution, and attorneys' fees.

Q: Why does this case matter for workers?

A: It emphasizes that California law requires meal breaks to be truly off-duty, and employers must pay additional compensation whenever employees are not provided that opportunity.

If you have questions about California labor law, filing a California class action, or wage and hour violations, contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to help at offices in Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Riverside, and Chicago.

Class Action Alleges Syska Hennessy Violated Labor Law with Missed Rest Breaks

In 2025, Syska Hennessy Group, Inc. was named in a class-action lawsuit filed in the San Diego County Superior Court. The complaint alleges that the company failed to provide employees with lawful meal and rest periods, failed to pay all wages due for time worked, and violated multiple sections of the California Labor Code.

Case: Anthony Tilley v. Syska Hennessy Group, Inc.

Court: San Diego County Superior Court (California)

Case No.: 25CU046687C

The Plaintiff: Tilley v. Syska Hennessy Group, Inc.

Anthony Tilley filed the lawsuit on behalf of himself and other current and former employees, alleging that Syska Hennessy Group required workers to maintain demanding schedules that frequently prevented them from taking required rest and meal breaks. The complaint alleges that the company failed to provide employees with pay for all their hours worked, labor law compliant overtime pay, and premium pay when workers missed their rest periods. According to the plaintiff, the company also failed to provide legally required accurate, itemized wage statements and appropriate reimbursement for work-related expenses.

The Defendant: Tilley v. Syska Hennessy Group, Inc.

Syska Hennessy Group, Inc. is an engineering and consulting firm with offices and projects across California. According to the lawsuit, the company’s staffing levels and scheduling practices led to employees working through their rest periods and performing duties while off the clock. Tilley claims the company did not fully relieve workers of job duties during their breaks; that they were still expected to be available to respond to job-related matters, and continue working on assignments.

A History of the Case: Tilley v. Syska Hennessy Group, Inc.

The case was filed in September 2025 in San Diego County Superior Court and remains pending. It seeks class certification on behalf of all non-exempt employees who worked for Syska Hennessy Group during the relevant time period. The complaint alleges violations of California Labor Code Sections 201, 202, 203, 204, 210, 226.7, 510, 512, 558, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, 1198.5, and 2802. The plaintiffs are seeking compensation for unpaid wages, statutory penalties, restitution, and attorneys’ fees.

The Main Question Being Considered by the Court in this Case

The primary issue before the court is whether Syska Hennessy Group violated California’s wage and hour laws. The court will evaluate whether the company’s work demands, project schedules, and staffing policies effectively denied employees the opportunity to take uninterrupted breaks, and whether such practices constitute systematic violations of the California Labor Code.

Why This Case Matters: Tilley v. Syska Hennessy Group, Inc.

For employees, the case can serve as a reminder that all workers (regardless of industry) are entitled to uninterrupted rest periods and proper compensation when those breaks are not provided.

FAQ: Tilley v. Syska Hennessy Group, Inc.

Q: What is the Syska Hennessy Group lawsuit about?

A: The lawsuit alleges that Syska Hennessy Group, Inc. failed to provide proper meal and rest breaks, required employees to work through rest periods, and did not pay premium wages as required by California law.

Q: What is premium pay for missed breaks?

A: When an employee is denied a required meal or rest break, California law requires the employer to pay one additional hour of pay at the employee’s regular rate for each day a break is missed.

Q: What does the lawsuit seek to recover?

A: The plaintiffs seek unpaid wages, premium pay, statutory penalties, restitution, and attorneys’ fees.

Q: Why is this case important?

A: It highlights that California’s rest and meal break protections apply broadly — not only to field or hourly workers — and that employers must ensure compliance across all departments and job types.

If you have questions about California labor law, filing a California class action, or wage and hour violations, contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to help at offices in Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Riverside, and Chicago.

Golden Labor Services Class Action: Missed Rest Breaks and Unpaid Wages?

In 2025, Golden Labor Services, LLC was named in a class action lawsuit filed in Kern County Superior Court alleging multiple violations of California’s wage and hour laws. The lawsuit claims that the company failed to provide required rest breaks, did not pay employees for all time worked, and violated various provisions of the California Labor Code.

Case: Patricia Castillo v. Golden Labor Services, LLC

Court: Kern County Superior Court (California)

Case No.: BCV-25-102982

The Plaintiff: Castillo v. Golden Labor Services, LLC

Patricia Castillo, acting on behalf of herself and other current and former employees, filed a class action complaint alleging that Golden Labor Services failed to provide compliant meal breaks and rest periods and failed to pay employees for all compensable time worked. The lawsuit asserts that workers were required to maintain demanding schedules without sufficient rest time or relief from work duties, in violation of state labor laws. The plaintiffs allege that the company’s staffing practices and workload expectations routinely prevented employees from taking uninterrupted rest periods. In some instances, employees reportedly worked more than four hours without a ten-minute rest break or were denied additional breaks for longer shifts.

The Defendant: Castillo v. Golden Labor Services, LLC

Golden Labor Services, LLC, provides staffing and labor solutions in California, particularly within industries that require manual labor and field operations. According to the complaint, the company’s scheduling and break policies violated several sections of the California Labor Code, including those regulating wages, breaks, and reimbursement for work-related expenses. The lawsuit claims that Golden Labor Services failed to ensure employees were fully relieved of duty during rest periods, often due to inadequate staffing or excessive workload demands. Employees were also allegedly not compensated with the additional hour of premium pay required by law when rest periods were missed or interrupted.

A History of the Case: Castillo v. Golden Labor Services, LLC

Filed in September 2025, the class-action lawsuit remains pending in the Kern County Superior Court. It seeks certification for all non-exempt employees who worked for Golden Labor Services during the relevant time period. The lawsuit claims violations of California Labor Code Sections 201, 202, 203, 204, 210, 226.7, 510, 512, 558, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, 1198.5, and 2802. The plaintiffs seek compensation for unpaid wages, penalties, and restitution, as well as attorneys’ fees and costs.

The Main Question Being Considered: Castillo v. Golden Labor Services, LLC

The key issue before the court is whether Golden Labor Services violated the California Labor Code by failing to provide legally required rest breaks and by not paying employees the one-hour premium wage mandated when rest periods are missed. The court will also consider whether the company’s staffing and scheduling practices made it impossible for employees to take uninterrupted rest periods as required under California law, and whether those missed breaks resulted in unpaid wages and penalties owed to affected workers.

Why This Case Matters for California Workers:

If proven, the allegations could highlight widespread wage and hour violations impacting workers throughout the state’s staffing and labor services industry. The case underscores the importance of proper scheduling, staffing, and compliance with California’s strict rest break and compensation requirements. For employees, this case serves as a reminder that California law guarantees the right to take uninterrupted rest breaks and mandates premium pay if those rights are denied.

FAQ: Castillo v. Golden Labor Services, LLC

Q: What is the Golden Labor Services lawsuit about?

A: The lawsuit alleges that Golden Labor Services failed to provide required rest breaks, did not pay employees for all time worked, and failed to provide premium pay for missed breaks.

Q: What specific laws are at issue?

A: The lawsuit cites violations of California Labor Code Sections 201, 202, 203, 204, 210, 226.7, 510, 512, 558, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, 1198.5, and 2802 — covering areas such as overtime, minimum wage, rest periods, accurate wage statements, and reimbursement of work expenses.

Q: Why are rest breaks so important under California law?

A: Employers must provide a ten-minute rest period for every four hours worked, during which employees must be fully relieved of duty. If a rest break is missed, the employer must pay one additional hour of pay at the worker's regular pay rate.

Q: What does the lawsuit seek to recover?

A: The plaintiffs are seeking unpaid wages, statutory penalties, restitution, and attorneys’ fees.

Q: What happens next in the case?

A: The case is currently pending in Kern County Superior Court. The court will determine whether the company’s policies violated state wage and hour laws and whether class certification is appropriate.

If you have questions about California labor law, filing a California class action, or wage and hour violations, contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to help at offices in Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Riverside, and Chicago.

Kings FLC Inc. Faces Allegations of Multiple California Labor Law Violations

In recent news, Kings FLC Inc. faces allegations of multiple labor law violations in a California class action complaint filed in Fresno County Superior Court. The complaint claims that the company did not pay their employees for all the hours they worked, and failed to provide their employees with rest periods and meal breaks compliant with labor law.

Case: Daniel Cuadra v. Kings FLC Inc.

Court: Fresno County Superior Court (California)

Case No.: 25CECG01432

The Plaintiff: Cuadra v. Kings FLC Inc.

The plaintiff in the case is Daniel Cuadra. Cuadra claims that Kings FLC Inc. failed to compensate workers for the time spent under the company's control. In his complaint, the plaintiff claims that he and other employees were regularly required to perform work-related tasks before and after their official shift. Cuadra's complaint also alleges that workers were often made to work during their unpaid meal breaks, as well. According to Cuadra, these practices led to unpaid wages and overtime, and missed meal and rest periods that violated California labor law.

The Defendant: Cuadra v. Kings FLC Inc.

Kings FLC Inc. is an agricultural labor contracting company that operates in California’s Central Valley. The plaintiffs allege that the company's timekeeping and scheduling practices violated labor law and resulted in unpaid wages, inaccurate wage statements, and missed breaks and meal periods.

A History of the Case: Cuadra v. Kings FLC Inc.

The plaintiff filed the Cuadra v. Kings FLC Inc. class action in May 2025. The suit seeks class certification and recovery for unpaid wages, penalties, restitution, and attorneys' fees. The case is pendig in Fresno County Superior Court. The case is part of a broader pattern of labor disputes in California’s agricultural industry, where off-the-clock work and denied rest periods have led to increased scrutiny under the state’s wage and hour laws.

The Main Question Being Considered: Cuadra v. Kings FLC Inc.

The central question before the court is whether Kings FLC Inc. violated the California Labor Code by requiring employees to work off the clock and by failing to provide them with full, off-duty meal and rest periods. The court will consider whether the company’s policies and practices unlawfully required employees to remain under employer control during unpaid time, entitling them to additional compensation. The decision will depend on whether the evidence demonstrates a pattern of wage and hour violations that affected multiple employees across throughout the company.

Why This Case Matters: Cuadra v. Kings FLC Inc.

If proven, the allegations against Kings FLC Inc. could represent systemic labor violations affecting agricultural employees throughout California’s Central Valley. The case underscores the ongoing importance of employer compliance with wage and hour laws in industries that heavily rely on manual labor and field operations. For workers, it reinforces the right to be paid for every minute spent under employer control — whether before shifts, after shifts, or during what should be unpaid breaks.

FAQ: Cuadra v. Kings FLC Inc.

Q: What is the Kings FLC Inc. lawsuit about?

A: The lawsuit alleges that Kings FLC Inc. required employees to perform work off-the-clock during unpaid meal breaks, before their shifts, and after their shifts.

Q: What labor laws are at issue?

A: The case cites alleged violations of California Labor Code Sections 201, 202, 203, 204, 210, 226, 226.7, 510, 512, 558, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, and 2802; laws governing wages, overtime, meal and rest periods, accurate wage statements, and reimbursement for expenses.

Q: What does "off-the-clock" work reference?

A: Off-the-clock work occurs when employees are required to perform duties outside of their paid hours (or hours when they are "on the clock.") Under California law, workers must be paid for all time they are under the employer’s control.

Q: What does the lawsuit seek?

A: The plaintiffs seek recovery of unpaid wages, statutory penalties, restitution, and attorneys’ fees.

Q: Why is this case significant for California workers?

A: It underscores that agricultural and field employees are entitled to the same wage and hour protections as workers in any other industry, including the right to proper pay and legally mandated breaks.

If you have questions about California labor law, filing a California class action, or wage and hour violations, contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to help at offices in Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Riverside, and Chicago.