Class And Representative Action Cases

Class And Representative Action Cases

A “class action” is a lawsuit brought by one or more claimants as representatives for an entire group of claimants who have been affected by a common violation but who do not need to participate in the lawsuit in order to be awarded a recovery. A class action suit may occur when many different people combine their similar complaints. This saves court time and allows a single judge to hear all the concerns at the same time, and come to one settlement or resolution for all parties. This process creates a procedure for redressing a relatively small claim that might otherwise be too costly to litigate on an individual basis.

At the Law Offices of Thomas D. Rutledge, we play a pivotal role in shaping the outcome of employment wage and hour class action lawsuits in California and sometimes the country. In a class action lawsuit, a large number of people who have suffered similar harm join together to sue another entity, usually a company or organization. These cases typically involve unpaid wages. The following is our class action department’s top investigations, old cases, and current cases:

Madriz, et al. v. North County Ford Inc., et al. 
Case No.: 37-2014-1896-CO-OE-CTL
Superior Court of San Diego, Central Division

This Representative Action case settled and judgment has been entered. In this Representative Employee action matter, the Plaintiff and Represented Employees, auto mechanics, sought PAGA penalties for alleged wage and hour violations committed by Defendant North County Ford. Plaintiffs’ Complaint mainly alleged: 1) failure to pay the minimum wage and overtime pay; 2) failure to provide compliant meal and rest breaks; 3) failure to reimburse business expenses; 4) failure to maintain accurate time keeping records; 5) failure to pay all wages due at termination; 6) unfair business practices; and 7) issuance of improper employees pay stubs, etc.

The Representative Period in this litigation was for all California employees who worked for defendant North County Ford as “Technicians” from February 2, 2010, to November 12, 2015.

If you are part of this group of employees, you may be entitled to money. For more information about this case, please contact Thomas D. Rutledge at 619-886-7224 or Phoenix Settlement Administrators, the claims administrator, at 1-800-784-2174.

Medina, et al. v. Mission Hills Health Care Inc., et al.
San Diego Superior Court Case Number 37-2014-00018988-CU-OE-CTL

This class action case has settled and proceeds of the settlement are payable in 2019. Plaintiffs alleged that Mission Hills Health Care Inc.: (1) Failed to Pay State/Regular Minimum Wages; (2) Failed to Pay State Overtime Wages; (3) Failed to Provide Meal periods; (4) Failed to Provide Rest periods; (5) Failed to Make Payments Within the Required Time; (6) Failed to Provide Accurate Itemized Wage Statements; (7) Failed to Maintain Accurate Records; (8) Remedies Under Private Attorney General Act (PAGA California Labor Code §§ 2698, 2699, et seq.); and (9) Unfair Business Practices in Violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17000, et seq. and §§ 17200, et seq.

Plaintiffs were healthcare workers who were paid longevity pay. Plaintiffs alleged their longevity pay was not included in their regular rate of pay in calculating the overtime rate of pay in violation of California law. As a result, Plaintiffs alleged they were not paid the proper amount of overtime. Further, plaintiffs alleged they were denied access to the meal break room on many occasions because management was too busy to open the door. Plaintiffs, via settlement with the Defendants, managed to get the Defendants to fix these and many other wage related problems.

The final approval was obtained on September 30, 2016. Settlement payments, however, will not be sent to eligible class members until 2019. For more information about this case, please contact Thomas D. Rutledge at 619-886-7224 or Phoenix Settlement Administrators, the claims administrator at 1-800-784-2174.

Lasheba Stafford v. Northgate Gonzalez Markets, Inc., et al. 
San Diego Superior Court Case Number: 37-2014-00027725-CU-OE-CTL

This case has concluded and all settlement checks have been sent to eligible recipients. The Plaintiffs alleged they were owed back wages because Northgate Gonzalez Markets, Inc. provided noncompliant meal breaks, meaning Plaintiffs normally received their meal breaks, but their breaks were too short, too late, or not at all in violation of California law. Plaintiffs also alleged the employer failed to provide the name of the legal entity that was her employer on her and other employees’ paystubs. Plaintiffs sought remedies pursuant to Labor Code Private Attorney General Act (“PAGA”), §§ 2698, 2699 for Defendants’ violations of §§ 201, 202, 203, 204b, 226, 226.7, 512, 558, 1174, and 1198.

This case is closed. The case resolved via a court-approved settlement and settlement payments were sent to eligible employees. For more information about this case please contact Thomas D. Rutledge at 619-886-7224 or Phoenix Settlement Administrators, the claims administrator, at 1-800-784-2174.

Horton, et al. v. Neostrata Company Inc. and 24 Seven Inc., et al. 
U.S. District Court Case No.: 16CV2189 AJB JLB  
 
Southern District of California

In this Class Action case, the Plaintiffs Candle Horton, Kimberlee Winston, and Jeanette Zdanek and the Putative Class Members claim that Defendants Neostrata Company Inc. and 24 Seven LLC, et al. (1) failed to pay state overtime wages; (2) failed to pay state minimum wages; (3) failed to make payments within the required time; (4) violation of Cal. Lab. Code § 226 for issuing inaccurate paystubs; (5) failed to maintain required records pursuant to of California Labor Code §§ 1174, et seq.; (6) unfair business practices; and (7) based thereon seek remedies under the Private Attorney General Act (PAGA). The Plaintiff and Putative Class Members consist of all employees who worked for Defendants Neostrata Company Inc. and 24 Seven Inc. in the state of California whose job responsibilities included training, marketing, and selling normally Neostrata Inc. products in department stores such as Ulta, Macys, and Nordstroms. The Putative Class period is from July 20, 2012, to the present.

In this Class Action case, the Plaintiff and Putative Class Members allege that Defendant Neostrata Inc. and 24 Seven Inc. required them to drive their personal vehicles to more than one predetermined work location in the same workday without compensation for their travel time in violation of California law. The Plaintiff and the Putative Class also contend that Defendant Neostrata Inc. and 24 Seven Inc. failed to reimburse the Putative Class for work related expenses such as mileage for driving to more than one mall in the same workday, cell phone usage, home internet usage, etc.

Case settled and we have moved the court to obtain preliminary approval of the class settlement. We are awaiting a decision. If you are a current or former employee, we would like to speak to you about your work experience. For more information about this case please contact Thomas D. Rutledge at 619-886-7224.

Mark Schwartz, et al. v. Bank of the West, et al.
San Francisco Superior Court Case Number: CGC-14-538955

This case is pending. In this case, the Plaintiffs, Mortgage Bankers, allege claims against Bank of the West for: (1) Failure to Pay Overtime, (2) Failure to Indemnify Employees for Mileage Reimbursement Equipment and Supplies; and (3) Failure to Provide All Wages Due and Owing, among other Labor Code violations.

The gravamen of this case involves Plaintiffs’ allegations that Bank of the West failed to pay wages and reimburse the Plaintiffs for business related expenses. Mark Schwartz, one of the Plaintiffs, was employed as a Mortgage Banker. He worked over 40 hours per week on numerous occasions, but alleges he was illegally not paid overtime compensation when he should have received overtime. Mr. Schwartz also alleges he drove his personal car to meet clients to travel from one bank location to another. Plaintiff alleges Bank of the West had a policy of not paying mileage to him and his fellow workers. Mr. Schwartz further alleges he often worked from home, but was not properly reimbursed for work related expenses that were incurred as a result of having to work from home, such as internet expenses, office supplies, etc. Mr. Schwartz often spent numerous hours on clerical and administrative loan processing type of work because Bank of the West wanted to cut labor costs and would not provide the Mortgage Bankers with an assistant to help with these tasks. This time he spent doing clerical tasks during work weeks, he worked 40 hours or more than 8 hours in a work day, Plaintiff maintains, should have been compensated at an overtime rate of pay.

For details regarding Plaintiffs’ Allegations, see Filed Complaint-Schwartz.

Case settled and we obtained final approval of the class settlement. You should have received your settlement check and if you do not receive your check, contact the claims administrator, CPT @ (949) 428-1076. For more information about this case please contact Thomas D. Rutledge at 619-886-7224.

Segal, et al. v. Aquent, et al. 
Case No.: 37-2017-00043402-CU-OE-CTL 

Superior Court of San Diego, Central Division

In this representative action case, the Plaintiffs allege their current or former employer (1) Failed to Pay State Minimum/Regular Wages; (2) failed to Make Payments Within the Required Time; (3) Violated Labor Code § 201.3; (4) Violated Labor Code § 226; (5) Failed to Maintain Required Records in Violation of California Labor Code §§ 1174, et seq.; and (6) Failed to Reimburse Business Expenses in Violation of California Labor Code § 2802, among other things, because their employer required employees to work from home without reimbursement, issued them inaccurate paystubs, especially since the paystubs failed to identify their rates of pay or the name(s) of their employer, failed to pay them wages, and related claims. The putative representative class consists of all current or former employees who worked in the state of California from November 21, 2013 to the present.

This case settled, but preliminary and final approval of the settlement has not been obtained. For more information about this case please contact Thomas D. Rutledge at 619-886-7224.

Babouchian, et al. v. Soleil Communications Inc., et al. (AKA Welk Resorts) 
SDSC Case Number: 37-2017-00044756-CU-OE-CTL 

Superior Court of San Diego, Central Division

In this representative action case, the Plaintiffs allege their current or former employer (1) Failed to Pay State Minimum/Regular Wages; (2) failed to Make Payments Within the Required Time; (3) Violated Labor Code § 203; (4) Violated Labor Code § 226; (5) Failed to Maintain Required Records in Violation of California Labor Code §§ 1174, et seq.; and (6) Failed to Reimburse Business Expenses in Violation of California Labor Code § 2802, among other things, because their employer required its employees to work for less than the minimum wage rate of pay required by the local area in which they worked, such as Los Angeles, San Diego County, etc. Plaintiffs and the employees she represents worked in the timesharing business selling and marketing timeshare products.The putative class consists of all current or former employees who worked in the state of California from November 14, 2013 to the present.

This case has not settled. For more information about this case please contact Thomas D. Rutledge at 619-886-7224.

Tzovinr Babouchian, et al. v. Wyndham Vacation Ownership, et al. 
SDSC Case Number: 37-2018-00014601-CU-OE-CTL
Superior Court of San Diego, Central Division

In this representative action case, the Plaintiffs allege their current or former employer (1) Failed to Pay State Minimum/Regular Wages; (2) Failed to Pay State Overtime Wages; (3) failed to Make Payments Within the Required Time; (4) Violated Labor Code § 226; (5) Failed to Reimburse Business Expenses in Violation of California Labor Code § 2802, and (6) failed to provide compliant meal breaks, among other things, because their employer required its employees to drive to more than one location, sometimes multiple locations, in the same workday without mileage, cell phone, and/or parking reimbursements. Plaintiffs also allege her meal breaks were often cut short or provided too late in the day and that her employer underpaid her wages, such as overtime and minimum wage, either because she worked in a vicinity where she was supposed to be paid higher minimum wages due to a local county or city ordinance and because her employer did not calculate her overtime properly. Plaintiffs and the employees she represents worked in the timesharing business marketing timeshare products. The representative group consists of all current or former employees who worked in the state of California from March 20, 2014 to the present.

This case has not settled. If you are a current or former employee, we would like to speak to you about your work experience. For more information about this case please contact Thomas D. Rutledge at 619-886-7224.

Anthony Bui, et al. v. Mission Bay Management LLC/Hilton San Diego Resort & Spa, et al. SDSC Case Number: 37-2018-00001104-CU-OE-CTL

Superior Court of San Diego, Central Division

In this representative action case, the Plaintiffs allege their current or former employer (1) Failed to Pay State Minimum/Regular Wages; (2) Failed to Pay State Overtime Wages; (3) failed to Make Payments Within the Required Time; (4) Violated Labor Code § 226, among other things. Plaintiffs and the employees he represents worked at the Hilton San Diego Resort & Spa. The representative group consists of all current or former employees who worked in the state of California from January 8, 2014 to the present.

This case has not settled. If you are a current or former employee, we would like to speak to you about your work experience. For more information about this case please contact Thomas D. Rutledge at 619-886-7224.

Velez, et al. v. Coworx Staffing LLC, et al. 
Case No. CIVDSI1803229

Superior Court of California, San Bernardino County

In this representative action case, the Plaintiffs allege their current or former employer failed to their wages in a timely manner, among other things. California law requires wages to be paid weekly to temporary employees and within 72 hours upon their resignation or on the same day their employer terminates their employment. Plaintiffs and the employees he represents worked as temporary employees in California and were paid perennially late all the time. The representative group consists of all current or former employees who worked in the state of California from January 25, 2014 to the present.

This case has settled. If you are a current or former employee, we would like to speak to you about your work experience. For more information about this case please contact Thomas D. Rutledge at 619-886-7224.

Campbell, et al. v. American Health Services, LLC, et al. 
SDSC Case Number: 37-2018-00018850-CU-OE-CTL

Superior Court of San Diego, Central Division

In this class/representative action case, the Plaintiffs allege their current or former employer (1) Failed to Pay State Minimum/Regular Wages; (2) Failed to Pay State Overtime Wages; (3) failed to Make Payments Within the Required Time; (4) Violated Labor Code § 226; and (5) violated the Business and Professions Code, among other things, because their employer paid its nonexempt employees on the wrong paydays, thus causing its employees to suffer from unpaid wages. Plaintiffs also allege their employer issued its employees confusing and erroneous wage and earning statements. Plaintiffs and the employees they represent worked in medical offices throughout southern California. The representative group consists of all current or former employees who worked in the state of California from April 16, 2014 to the present.

This case has not settled. If you are a current or former employee, we would like to speak to you about your work experience. For more information about this case please contact Thomas D. Rutledge at 619-886-7224.

Fuentes, et al. v. Maxim Health Care Services, Inc., et al.
Case No.: 2:17-cv-01072

U.S. District Court, Central Division

In this class/representative action case, the Plaintiffs allege their current or former employer (1) Failed to Pay State Minimum/Regular Wages; (2) Failed to Pay State Overtime Wages; (3) failed to Make Payments Within the Required Time; (4) Violated Labor Code § 226; (5) Failed to Pay for Missed Meal and Rest Breaks, and (6) violated the Business and Professions Code, among other things. Plaintiffs Fuentes and Johnston worked as LVN’s for Maxim in its Homecare division, helping patients with serious health conditions in their patient’s homes. Maxim made them sign meal break waiver forms, which in of themselves they maintain were unfair and unenforceable because they feel they were never given a choice to decline signing. Even so, when they worked more than 10 hours in a workday, Maxim failed to pay them for their second missed meal break, which Plaintiffs maintain was illegal. Further, Plaintiffs often experienced instances where they could not take an uninterrupted rest break because their patients needed so much attention. Plaintiffs also allege their employer issued its employees confusing and erroneous wage and earning statements. Plaintiffs and the employees they represent worked in patients’ homes throughout California. The representative group consists of all current or former employees who worked in the state of California from December 15, 2012 to the present.

This case has not settled. If you are a current or former employee, we would like to speak to you about your work experience. For more information about this case please contact Thomas D. Rutledge at 619-886-7224.

 

 

Leave a Reply