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:

Long, et al. v. Stanley Black & Decker, Inc., et al. 
U.S. District Court Case No.: 14CV1246 JLS BGS
Southern District of California

This case settled and judgment was entered. The Plaintiffs in this class action were current and former employees who were Field Technicians, Service Technicians, and similar titled workers who alleged they were not paid all of their wages by Stanley Black & Decker Inc. and/or their subsidiaries. Plaintiffs claim that Defendants failed to (1) provide compensable drive time, (2) pay overtime wages, (3) pay minimum wages, (4) provide meal periods, (5) provide rest periods, (6) make payments within the required time, (7) provide compliant itemized wage statements, (8) maintain required records in violation of California Labor Code Section 1174, and (9) pay prevailing wages. Plaintiffs in this case are also employees who alleged they were issued pay stubs with the wrong legal entity listed as their employer. Plaintiffs also sought remedies under the Private Attorney General Act (“PAGA”) and the Unfair Business Practices Act.

The gravamen of this case were allegations that Plaintiffs worked for Stanley Black & Decker Inc. as Field Technicians where they drove a company vehicle from home to the customer’s worksites and returned to their homes after the job was completed at the end of the workday. Plaintiffs alleged that Stanley Black & Decker Inc. illegally required Plaintiffs to deduct 30 minutes from the beginning of each workday and 30 minutes from the end of each workday. Plaintiffs claim this was illegal and such commute time was compensable. In addition, Plaintiffs worked more than 40 hours in a week and claim they were not paid proper overtime wages or prevailing wages when working on public work projects. Plaintiffs also alleged they were also not provided proper meal & rest breaks, particularly since they could not leave their tools behind to go on a meal break.

Final approval of the settlement was obtained from the U.S. District Court of the Southern District of California in April 2015, and this case is now closed. For more information about this case please contact Thomas D. Rutledge at 619-886-7224.

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.

Villagrana and Chisolm v. 7-ELEVEN, INC., et al.
San Diego Superior Court Case Number: 37-2014-00007890-CU-OE-CTL

This case has settled and judgment was entered. Plaintiffs alleged they are owed back wages because 7-Eleven wrongfully withheld money from each paycheck for “rental fees” for the company car they were issued, as well as back wages for company expenses for which they alleged they were never reimbursed. Plaintiffs’ Complaint specifically alleged (1) Failure to Provide Complete Access to Employee Payroll and Personnel Records (Cal. Labor Code §§ 226, 432, and 1198.5); (2) Failure to Make Payments Within the Required Time; (3) Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized Wage Statements; (4) Violation of Labor Code § 2802; (5) Violation of Labor Code § 450; (6) Violation of Labor Code §§ 221 and/or 222 and/or 223; (7) Violation of Labor Code 224; (8) Failure to Pay Minimum and/or Regular State Wages; (9) Failure to Maintain Required Records in Violation of California Labor Code §§ 1174, 1174.5 and Wage Order No. 4, § 7; (10) Remedies Pursuant to Labor Code Private Attorney General Act (“PAGA”), §§ 2698, 2699; and (11) Unfair Business Practices (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17000, et seq. and § 17200, et seq.)

The Court in this case finally approved and the case has been concluded. For more information about this case please contact Thomas D. Rutledge at 619-886-7224.

Vanessa Mitchell, et al. v. Phone Ware Inc., et al.
San Diego Superior Court Case No.:  37-2014-00008449-CU-OE-CTL

This case has settled and judgment was entered. The Plaintiffs in this lawsuit were current and former Customer Service Sales Representatives who alleged (1) Failure to Provide Complete Access to Employee Payroll and Personnel Records (Cal. Labor Code §§ 226, 432, and 1198.5); (2) Failure to Make Payments Within the Required Time; (3) Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized Wage Statements; (4) Failure to Pay State Minimum and/or Regular Wages; (5) Failure to Pay State Overtime Wages; (6) Breach of Contract; (7) Accounting; (8) Failure to Maintain Required Records in Violation of California Labor Code §§ 1174, 1174.5 and Wage Order No. 4, § 7; (9) Remedies Pursuant to Labor Code Private Attorney General Act (“PAGA”), §§ 2698, 2699; and (10) Unfair Business Practices (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17000, et seq. and § 17200, et seq.)

Final approval of the settlement was obtained from the Superior Court of California in 2014, and the case has been concluded. For more information about this case please contact Thomas D. Rutledge at 619-886-7224.

Yadira Diego, et al. v. JMS Properties LLC, et al.
San Diego Superior Court Case Number: 37-2013-00056177-CU-0E-CTL

This case has settled and judgment was entered. The Plaintiffs in this lawsuit were current and former Medical Technicians/Care Givers whose claims include: (1) Failure to Pay State Overtime Wages; (2) Failure to Pay State Minimum Wages; (3) Failure to Provide Meal periods; (4) Failure to Provide Rest periods; (5) Failure to Make Payments Within the Required Time; (6) Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized Wage Statements; (7) Remedies Under Private Attorney General Act (PAGA California Labor Code §§ 2698, 2699, et seq.); (8) Unfair Business Practices in Violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17000, et seq. and §§ 17200, et seq.; and (9) Conversion (Labor Code §§ 3336 and 3294).

Final approval of the settlement was obtained from the Superior Court of California in 2014, and the case has been concluded. If you have any questions about this matter, 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 currently pending. In this case, the Plaintiffs, Mortgage Bankers, allege the following claims against Bank of the West: (1) Failure to Pay Overtime and Double Overtime Wages, (2) Failure to Indemnify Employees for Mileage Reimbursement Equipment and Supplies They Had to Purchase; 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 during the workweek and 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. Mr. Schwartz often spends numerous hours on clerical, administrative loan processing type of work because Bank of the West wants 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, Plaintiff maintains, should have been compensated at an hourly rate.

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

The parties are currently engaged in discovery. Mr. Rutledge and his co-counsel have the contact information for the class members. He or one of his colleagues may be contacting you to discuss this matter and to determine if you are a victim of the misconduct alleged in the Complaint.
For more information about this case please contact Thomas D. Rutledge at 619-886-7224.

Santana, et al. v. KEHE Food Distributors, Inc., et al. 
Case No.: 3:15-CV-2963-LAB/DAB
U.S. District Court, Southern California

This class action case has settled and is currently pending a Final Approval hearing. The Plaintiff and the Putative Class in this class action alleged the following claims against KEHE: (1) failure to pay timely wages; (2) failure to pay all wages; (3) failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements; (4) failure to indemnify/ reimburse; (5) rest break claims; (6) unfair business practices; and (7) conversion.

The Putative Class Members consists of all KEHE Food Distributor employees who were field “Sales Representatives” and/or “Field Sales Associates” in California from November 16, 2011, to April 17, 2017.

The gravamen of Plaintiffs’ allegations is unpaid wages. The Plaintiff and Putative Class Members were employees whose duties were to primarily stock shelves at various grocery stores in California. The Plaintiffs and other similarly situated Represented Employees were paid on a straight commission quasi-piece rate basis. The Plaintiff and Represented Employees alleged that Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs and Represented Employees for all of their rest breaks because its compensation system is/was based on an activity-based compensation system (i.e., straight commission sales) and, as such, it does/did not compensate its employees for rest breaks or provide an ability to pay its employees for rest breaks. Plaintiffs also alleged they were not compensated enough for mileage reimbursement.

Plaintiff has filed a Motion for Final Approval of the settlement and is awaiting a decision from the U.S. District Court. 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 CPT Group Inc. the claims administrator, at 1-800-542-0900.

 

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 has obtained final approval of the settlement. 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. 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.

Parnell, et al. v. Hart-Hanks Shoppers, Inc.\Pennysaver USA Inc., et al.
Orange County Superior Court Case Number 30-2014-00736236-CU-OE-CXC

This class action case has settled with Defendant Harte-Hanks Shoppers, Inc. The Plaintiffs in this lawsuit are current and former inside sales representatives for Pennysaver whose claims include (1) Failure to Provide Proper Meal and Rest Breaks; (2) Failure to Pay Minimum and/or Regular State Wages; (3) Failure to Pay Overtime Wages; (4) Failure to Maintain Accurate Records; and (5) Failure to Timely Pay Wages Due During and Following Separation of Employment, among other Labor Code violations. Plaintiffs worked for Pennysaver USA Inc. (formerly Harte-Hanks Shoppers Inc.) as nonexempt inside sales representatives. Plaintiffs were/are full time employees working 40 hours a week or more. Once the Plaintiffs reached their quota, they were paid on a straight commission basis and thus would not receive compensation for all of the work actually performed. Plaintiffs were not provided proper rest breaks nor were they compensated for those breaks particularly during periods when their time was unproductive (i.e. not selling).

For details regarding Plaintiffs’ Allegations, see Parnell Complaint.

The parties have agreed on settlement with Defendant Harte-Hanks Shoppers, Inc. and the case against Defendant Harte-Hanks Shoppers, Inc. only has obtained final approval.

Pennysaver is in bankruptcy, so Plaintiffs cannot proceed against Pennysaver at this time. For more information about this case please contact Thomas D. Rutledge at 619-886-7224 or direct message me at thomasrutledgelaw@gmail.com . If you have not received notice of the settlement, you must contact the claims administrator, Rust Consulting at 612-359-2031.

 

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

This case has settled and judgment was entered. 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.

The case is closed. 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.

José Tajonar, et al. v. ECHOSPHERE LLC/DISH NETWORK L.L.C./DISH LLC, et al.
San Diego Superior Court Case Case Number: 37-2014-00041384-CU-OE-CTL; SDSC Case Number: 37-2014-00027744-CU-OE-CTL; Case No.: 3:14-cv-02732-LAB-RBB

This case is still pending. The Plaintiffs in this lawsuit are current and former cable television and internet installers who allege claims against Defendants Dish Network and its related entities for (1) Failure to Provide Access to Employee Payroll and Personnel Records (Cal. Labor Code §§ 226, 432, and 1198.5); (2) Failure to Pay State Overtime Wages; (3) Violations of California Labor Code §226.7 (Meal Periods); (4) Failure to Make Payments Within the Required Time; (5) Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized Wage Statements; (6) Failure to Maintain Required Records in Violation of California Labor Code §§ 1174, 1174.5 and Wage Order No. 4, § 7; (7) Remedies Pursuant to Labor Code Private Attorney General Act (“PAGA”), §§ 2698, 2699; and (8) Unfair Business Practices (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17000, et seq. and § 17200, et seq.)

Plaintiff Tajonar is the class representative who worked for Defendants Dish Network and its related entities as an installer who often was often forced to take late meal breaks
during the workday. Plaintiff Tajonar, as well as all the other installers, alleges he was not paid all wages due and owing because his employer did not include nondiscretionary bonus payments into his and other workers’ overtime rate of pay and/or because Dish failed to comply with California’s Alternate Workweek Schedule laws. Plaintiff Tajonar also alleges he and putative Class Members’ paystubs were illegally inaccurate since the pay stubs identified the wrong legal entity that was his employer, among other problems. Plaintiff Tajonar alleges he, among other similarly situated employees, has not been paid all wages due and owing for the hours worked and for the bonus payments earned.

The parties are currently engaged in discovery. On May 26, 2017, this case is going to trial.

For details regarding Plaintiffs’ Allegations, see Conformed FAC.

For more information about this case please contact Thomas D. Rutledge at 619-886-7224.

Howard Rosenstein, et al. v. Pratt and Whitney, et al.
U.S. District Court of the Southern District of California
Case No.: 15-CV-2183 JM/JLB
Complaint Filed: July 21, 2015

This class action case has settled and the settlement is pending Final Approval. The Plaintiffs in this lawsuit are current and former employees who allege class claims against Defendants Pratt and Whitney and its related entities for: (1) Violations of California Labor Code §226; (2) Remedies Pursuant to Labor Code Private Attorney General Act (“PAGA”), §§ 2698, 2699; and (3) Violations under the Unfair Business Practices (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17000, et seq. and § 17200, et seq.).

Howard Rosenstein is the class representative who worked for Defendants Pratt and Whitney and its related entities. Howard, as well as all the employees, alleges he their pay stubs were illegally inaccurate since the pay stubs identified the wrong legal entity that was his employer, wrong rates of pay, among other problems.

This case obtained Preliminary Approval and is scheduled for Final Approval on March 20, 2017 . Notice of settlement has been mailed to you if you are a class member. If you did not receive notice, please contact Simpluris, Inc., the claims administrator, for more information at Toll Free: (800) 779-2104 or Thomas D. Rutledge at 619-886-7224.

 

Martz, et al. v. TRL Systems Inc., et al. 
Case No.: CIV DS1515312
Superior Court of San Bernardino, Rancho Cucamonga Division

The Putative Representative Class in this class action consists of all current or former employees who worked in the state of California from October 19, 2011 to the present as “Field Technicians”. The Putative Class consists of TRL Systems employees who did not receive all of their wages as required by California law, and who were subject to wage and hour violations by their TRL Systems Inc. The Plaintiff and Class members allege that TRL Systems Inc.: (1) failed to Provide Compensable Drive Time/State Overtime Double Time Wages; (2) failed to pay state minimum and regular time wages; (3) failed to make payments within the required time; (4) violation of employment regulation and supervision pursuant to Cal. Lab. Code § 226; (5) failed to maintain required employee or employment records; (6) engaged in unfair business practices in violation; and (7) the Plaintiff and Putative Class seek PAGA remedies.

The Putative Class alleged that hourly employees were required to drive small company trucks to predetermined work locations from home and return home from such locations during which time they were under the control of the employer, making driving a company vehicle “labor” within the meaning of California law. Plaintiffs also alleged that defendant TRL Systems Inc. required its employees that drove company-owned vehicles to deduct one hour each workday from their weekly timesheets on the theory that its employees had to commute to work regardless. Based on these allegations, Plaintiff commenced Class Action Representative Employee claim against defendant TRL Systems Inc.

TRL Systems Inc. denied all the claims and allegations in the Complaint, and disputed any liability. This case was settled on a non-admission basis, without any admission of fault or wrongdoing by TRL Systems Inc. or any other party.

The Parties’ settlement agreement creates a claims process that is automatic, meaning Class Members will receive a payment without having to file a claim form. Class Members may contact the claim administrator, Phoenix Settlement Administrators (800)-784-2174, with any questions and to confirm they are on the class list for purposes of obtaining a settlement distribution.

For more information about this case please contact Thomas D. Rutledge at 619-886-7224.

Don, et al. v. Stanley Penn and Lucky Lady Casino, et al. 
Case No.: 37-2016-25005-CU-OE-CTL
Superior Court of San Diego, Central Division

The Plaintiff and Represented Employees in this class action allege that Defendants Stanley Penn and Lucky Lady Casino: (1) failed to pay state overtime wages; (2) failed to pay state minimum wages; (3) failed to provide adequate meal break compensation; (4) failed to make payments within the required time; (5) violation of employment regulation and supervision pursuant to Cal. Lab. Code § 226; (6) failed to maintain required records pursuant to of California Labor Code §§ 1174, et seq.; (7) engaged in unfair business practices in Violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17000, et seq. and §§ 17200, et seq.; (8) violated Lab. Code § 2802 by failing to reimburse its employees; and (9) seek remedies under the Private Attorney General Act (PAGA). Defendant Stanley is an individual and the owner/operator of the Lucky Lady Casino, one of a few of the County of San Diego’s lawful gambling establishments. The relevant Class period in this class action is from July 22, 2012, to the present.

 

The Plaintiff and Putative Class Members consists of card dealers (i.e., poker dealers) and other nonexempt employees who worked for the Lucky Lady Casino. The Plaintiffs and Represented Employees claim that Stanley Penn and Lucky Lady Casino required Plaintiffs and similarly aggrieved employees to work the same nine-hour shifts, yet failed to adequately compensate the Plaintiff and Represented Employees for overtime pay in any workday while they worked in excess of eight hours. The Plaintiff and Represented Employees further contend that Stanley Penn and Lucky Lady Casino failed to properly compensate the Putative Class for missed meal periods and also failed to compensate the Putative Class for having attended mandatory work related meetings. Plaintiffs also maintain Defendants unlawfully required its employees to report to work 15 minutes early to perform work but without pay. Plaintiffs further allege Defendants failed to reimburse class members for uniforms and for expenditures allocated with their requirement to play card games when it was slow at work. Plaintiffs also maintain Defendants illegally required class members to pay Defendants gambling debts they incurred using money taken from their paychecks in violation of California law

This case has not settled. The parties are currently engaged in motion practice and discovery.

For more information about this case please contact Thomas D. Rutledge at 619-886-7224.

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.

This case has not settled. The parties are currently engaged in motion practice and discovery.

For more information about this case please contact Thomas D. Rutledge at 619-886-7224.

Scott, et al. v. Coastal Transport Co. Inc., et al. 
Case No.: 37-2016-20248-CO-OE-CTL  
 
Superior Court of San Diego, Central Division

In this wage and hour Class Action case, the Plaintiff and Represented Employees allege that Defendant Coastal Transport Co. Inc.: (1) Failure to Pay Regular and Overtime Wages; (2) Waiting Time Penalties in violation of Labor Code §§ 201-203 (3) Failed to Provide Accurate Wage Statements (Labor Code § 226); (4) Failed to Provide Meal and Rest Periods (Labor Code §§ 226.7, 512); (5) Payment For Required and Necessary Expenditures (Labor Code § 2802); (6) Unfair Business Practices (Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200, et seq.); (7) Conversion (Civil Code §§ 3294, 3336); (8) Wage Theft (Penal Code § 496); and (9)Remedies Under Private Attorney General Act (PAGA California Labor Code §§ 2698, 2699, et seq. the Representative Period for the Putative Class Members in this litigation is from June 15, 2012, to the present.

 

The Plaintiff and Putative Class Members consist of all persons currently or formerly employed by defendant Coastal Transport Co. Inc. as nonexempt employee drivers who were employed within the State of California at any time during the Representative Period. The Plaintiff and Represented Employees allege that Defendant Coastal Transport Co. Inc., failed to properly compensate the Plaintiff Putative Class for regular wages, overtime wages, failed to adequately compensate the Plaintiff and Putative Class for meal and break time periods, failed to properly reimburse Plaintiff and the Represented Employees for work related expenses, and provided inaccurate paystubs or wage and earnings statements in violation of the California Labor Code.

This case has settled and is pending preliminary approval of the class settlement. The parties are currently engaged in motion practice.

For more information about this case please contact Thomas D. Rutledge at 619-886-7224.

Horton, et al. v. Socket Payment Services LLC. and L’Oreal et al. 
Case No.: 37-2016-4529-CU-OE-CTL
Superior Court of San Diego,  Central Division

In this ongoing representative action case, the Plaintiffs allege their current or former employer (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; (7) meal and rest period violations; and (8) based thereon seek remedies under the Private Attorney General Act (PAGA). The putative representative class consists of all current or former employees who worked in the state of California for Defendant Socket Payment Services LLC and L’Oreal Inc. as nonexempt salespersons. The Class Period is from February 5, 2012, to the present.

The Plaintiffs in this representative case allege that during all times relevant and based on a policy created and enforced by their employer, Plaintiff and Class Members were required to drive their own vehicle from home to two or more stores in the same workday for which travel related vehicle expenses, such as mileage expenses in travelling between job locations in the same workday, were not reimbursed for by their employer. As part of their allegations, Plaintiff and Class Members contend they worked from home as a condition of his/her employment and were required to use their personal computer, cell phone, obtain and pay for Internet access, devote a portion of his/her home for work, and incurred various other expenses associated with work which were not properly compensated by their employer. Plaintiffs also allege Defendant L’Oreal failed to pay Plaintiffs all the class wages for any commute time while travelling from one work assignment to another during the same workday or for meal and rest breaks.

This case has not settled. The parties are currently engaged in motion practice and discovery.

For more information about this case please contact Thomas D. Rutledge at 619-886-7224.

 

Leave a Reply