Posts Tagged ‘California’
Amicus curiae, Arnold Schwarzenegger, California, California Supreme Court, Carlos R. Moreno, Carol A. Corrigan, Carol Corrigan, Kathryn Mickle Werdegar, Marvin R. Baxter, Ming W. Chin, Professional Engineers in California Government, Ronald M. George
In Other Cases of Interest on October 6, 2010 at 10:15 pm
On Monday, the California Supreme Court held that the California “Legislature’s 2009 enactment of the revisions to the 2008 Budget Act operated to ratify the use of the two-day-a-month furlough program as a permissible means of achieving the reduction of state employee compensation mandated by the act.” Professional Engineers in California Government v. Schwarzenegger, No. S183411, — Cal.Rptr.3d —-, 2010 WL 3835132, *2 (Cal. Oct. 4, 2010). Accordingly, the Court concluded that the “2009 budget legislation validated the Governor’s furlough program here at issue, and rejected plaintiffs’ challenge to that program. Id.
On December 1, 2008 Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger declared a fiscal emergency, called the Legislature into special session, and submitted to the Legislature a comprehensive plan to address the budget problem. Id. *1. The Governor’s budget plan included, among many other cost-saving features, two proposed statutory provisions that would impose a mandatory one-day-a-month unpaid furlough of most state employees employed by the executive branch. Id. The Legislature later passed its own proposed comprehensive budget legislation, but the Legislature’s alternative plan did not include the Governor’s recommended furlough provision. Id. Read the rest of this entry »
Attorney's fee, California, Class action, Law, Legal Information, Litigation, Susan Illston, United States District Court for the Northern District of California
In Attorney's Fees, Class Actions, Incentive Award, Meal and Rest Breaks, Settlement on October 6, 2010 at 9:25 am
The Northern District of California granted final approval of a settlement in a meal and rest break class action in Ross v. US Bank National Association, No. C 07-02951 SI, 2010 WL 3833922 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 29, 2010). The complaint was filed on behalf of all hourly employees who worked at a California U.S. Bank in-store branch. See Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement (“MPA”) at 1. Plaintiffs alleged that they and other hourly paid employees have not been provided a legally compliant meal and rest period on Sundays and worked off the clock pre and post shift and during their meal breaks. Id. The parties settled the case, and the settlement agreement provides for the payment of compensation to each Participating Class Member based on his or her total workweeks in a Class position during a certain period. Ross, 2010 WL 3833922, *1. The court approved a non-reversionary settlement of $3,500,000 for approximately 3,300 settlement class members. MPA at 2.
Attorneys’ Fees and Costs
Plaintiffs’ counsel sought an award of 30% of the settlement fund, $1,050,000.00, as attorneys’ fees. Ross, 2010 WL 3833922, *1. Plaintiffs estimate that the total time spent litigating this case, including time overseeing claims administration, will be approximately 2647.7 hours. Id. Plaintiffs’ counsel listed hourly rates ranging from $185 an hour to $650 an hour. MPA at 14. The court reduced the award to 25%: Read the rest of this entry »
California, Chipotle Mexican Grill, Elizabeth A. Grimes, Fast food restaurant, Government, Judicial Branch, Law, Madeleine Flier, O’Connell, Supreme Court, United States
In Certification, Class Actions, Meal and Rest Breaks on October 5, 2010 at 5:25 am
In a putative meal and rest break class action, the Second District denied class certification, holding that “employers must provide employees with breaks, but need not ensure employees take breaks.” Hernandez v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., No. B216004, 2010 WL 3789012 (Cal. Ct. App. 2d Dist. Sept. 30, 2010). Plaintiff and appellant Rogelio Hernandez (Hernandez) Hernandez filed a class action lawsuit against Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. (Chipotle) alleging that Chipotle violated labor laws by denying employees meal and rest breaks. Id. *1. The trial court denied class certification, and plaintiff appealed. Id. The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that it would not be “practical” to require “enforcement of meal breaks” since it “would place an undue burden on employers whose employees are numerous or who … do not appear to remain in contact with the employer during the day.” Id. *7. “It would also create perverse incentives, encouraging employees to violate company meal break policy in order to receive extra compensation under California wage and hour laws.” Id.
Background
Chipotle is a fast food restaurant chain, and all employees are nonexempt, except for the salaried position of “restaurateur.” Id. *1. Chipotle’s written policies require managers to provide employees with meal and rest breaks, and employees are not permitted to self-initiate breaks and are prohibited from skipping breaks. Id. Chipotle directs employees to record their breaks. Read the rest of this entry »
California, Charles R. Breyer, Class Notice, Consuelo B. Marshall, Law, Lawsuit, Legal Information, Los Angeles, New York Times, Ninth Circuit, Stephen S. Trott, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, William A. Fletcher
In 23(b)(2) Class, Class Actions, Class Notice, Collective Action, Exemptions, FLSA, Jury, Meal and Rest Breaks, Opt-in, Opt-out, Overtime, Preemption, Professional, Trial, Unfair Competition Law on September 30, 2010 at 12:14 am
On Monday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed in “all respects” the trial court’s grant of partial summary judgment to plaintiffs, a judgment after jury and bench trials, and an award of attorney’s fees to plaintiffs. Wang v. Chinese Daily News, Inc., Nos. 08-55483, 08-56740, — F.3d —-, 2010 WL 3733568 (9th Cir. Sept. 27, 2010). Among other things, the Ninth Circuit held that plaintiff newspaper reporters were non-exempt. (Thank you to Randy Renick for bringing this case to my attention.)
Background
Employees of Chinese Daily News, Inc. (“CDN”), a Chinese-language newspaper, filed suit against CDN on behalf of current, former, and future CDN employees based in CDN’s San Francisco and Monterey Park (Los Angeles), California locations. Id. *1. Plaintiffs claimed violations of the FLSA, California’s Labor Code, and California’s Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, alleging that employees were made to work in excess of eight hours per day and forty hours per week. Id. Read the rest of this entry »
California, Fair Labor Standard Act, Frank C. Damrell, Jr., Law, Legal Information, New York, Overtime, United States, United States District Court
In Collective Action, First to File, FLSA, Transfer on September 29, 2010 at 5:25 am
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California denied defendant employer’s motion to transfer pursuant to the “first-to file” rule. Wilkie v. Gentiva Health Services, Inc., Civ. No. 10-1451 FCD/GGH, 2010 WL 3703060 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 16, 2010) (slip op.). Plaintiff filed a putative nation-and California-wide class action/collective action against plaintiff’s former employer Gentiva for alleged violations of the Federal Labor and Standards Act (“FLSA”) and the California Labor Code § 201 et seq. for: (1) misclassification as exempt from overtime pay and failure to pay overtime; (2) willful failure to pay wages due within the time specified by the Code; (3) violation of California Wage Order No. 4 for knowingly and intentionally failing to provide timely, accurate, itemized wage statements including request for an injunction and damages; (4) failure to give proper rest and meal breaks; and (5) violation of California’s Business & Professions Code § 17200 et seq. Id. *1
A prior FLSA collective action and New York and North Carolina state law class action against Gentiva was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, entitled Rindfleisch, et al. v. Gentiva Health Services, Inc., No. CV10-2111 (E.D.N.Y.) (“Rindfleisch”). Defendant moved to transfer plaintiff’s complaint under the “first-to-file rule,” on the ground plaintiff’s claims are the subject of the Rindfleisch action. Plaintiff opposed the motion, arguing the parties and claims are not substantially similar in the two actions and other equitable factors militate against transfer under the first-to-file rule. Id. The court denied Gentiva’s motion. Id. Read the rest of this entry »
Appellate court, Business, California, Employment, Government, Ralph, United States, Work
In Meal and Rest Breaks, Overtime, Summary Judgment on September 28, 2010 at 5:54 am
The Court of Appeal for the Second District reversed summary judgment on wage and hour claims in Porter v. Ralphs Grocery Company, No. B218220, 2010 WL 3704055 (Cal. Ct. App. 2d Dist. Sept. 23, 2010). Plaintiff alleged that defendant required him to work overtime off the clock, and by doing this defendant both denied plaintiff proper wages and made it difficult for plaintiff to calculate the overtime pay due him. Id. *8. Plaintiff also alleged that defendant failed to afford meal periods of at least one-half hour in which he was relieved of all duties, and that he regularly worked without taking the 10 minute rest breaks due him. Id. Plaintiff alleged violation of Labor Code sections 1174, 226.7, and 512. Id. He also alleged violation of Labor Code sections 201 and 203 for failure to pay all sums due plaintiff immediately upon termination of his employment. Id. Additionally, he alleged defendant retaliated against him for his having requested that he not have to work off the books. Id.
The Court of Appeal held that “when an employee continues to work at the end of his shift even when not requested or required to do so, and the employer knows or has reason to know about such continuing work, then the time is considered working time and it is the duty of management to see that the post-shift work is not performed if it does not want the employee to work past his shift.” Id. *9 (citing Morillion v. Royal Packing Co., 22 Cal. 4th 575 (2000)). Read the rest of this entry »
California, California Supreme Court, Gentry, Law, Lawrence K. Karlton, Rent-A-Center, Stolt-Nielsen, Supreme Court, Supreme Court of the United States, United States, United States District Court
In Arbitration, Class-wide Arbitration on September 27, 2010 at 5:20 am
United States District Court for the Eastern District of California rejected defendant’s argument that Stolt-Nielson preempted Gentry, and the court held that a class-wide arbitration agreement was unenforceable as against an unpaid wage and overtime plaintiff. Mathias v. Rent-A-Center, Inc., Civ. No. S-10-1476 LKK/KJM, 2010 WL 3715059 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 15, 2010) (slip op.).
Background
Ryan Mathias (“Mathias” or “plaintiff”) was employed by Rent-A-Center, Inc. (“RAC” or “defendant”) as an Assistant Manager, a position that was classified as a non-exempt or hourly position. Id. *1. As a condition of employment, plaintiff executed an arbitration agreement (“Agreement”), which Agreement contained a class action waiver and excluded arbitration private attorney general actions. Id. Plaintiff filed a class action alleging eight claims arising from his employment with defendant, including claims for unpaid wages and overtime, unpaid rest and meal period premiums, and penalties arising from non-compliant wage statements under the California Labor Code and California Business and Professions Code. Id. Read the rest of this entry »
Breach of contract, California, California Supreme Court, Class action, Employment, Irma E. Gonzalez, Law, Michael Jordan, Supreme Court of the United States
In 23(b)(3) Class, Class Actions, Contract, Paystub, Uniform, Vacation, Wages on September 24, 2010 at 2:20 pm
The Southern District of California granted class certification in a vacation, uniform, paycheck, wage and contract class action. Lopez v. G.A.T. Airline Ground Support, Inc., No. 09cv2268-IEG(BGS), 2010 WL 3633177 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 13, 2010) (slip op.).
Background
Former employees of Defendant G.A.T. Airline Ground Support, Inc. (“GAT”) sued for systematic wage and hour violations in violation of federal and state law. Id. *1. GAT provides services to airlines, including ground transportation, aircraft maintenance, and cargo operations management. Id. The four named Plaintiffs are former ramp agents employed by GAT in California. Id. Read the rest of this entry »
California, Financial Services, Law, Lawyers and Law Firms, Martin J. Jenkins, Peter J. Siggins, Recreation, Services, United States, Wall Street, William R. McGuiness
In Alter Ego Liability, Attorney's Fees, Labor Code 218.5 on September 24, 2010 at 1:06 pm
The Court of Appeal for the First District held that an officer’s failure to pay wages and commissions to an employee, while paying himself and his wife during the same period, is not the type of conduct that requires piercing the corporate veil. Wymore v. Minto, No. A125476, 2010 WL 3687511 (Cal. Ct. App. 1st Dist. Sept. 22, 2010).
Nor do we see any merit to appellants’ various arguments that it would work an injustice to allow respondent to hide behind EWM because it was his decision, as a director and officer of EWM, not to pay appellants wages and commissions in 2007, while paying himself and his wife during the same calendar year. The fact that respondent, as the president of EWM, may have intentionally failed to pay appellants is not the type of conduct that requires piercing the corporate veil. Read the rest of this entry »
California, Court, Northern District of California, Plaintiff, Susan Illston, Unfair competition, United Parcel Service, United States, United States District Court for the Northern District of California
In Administrative, Exemptions on September 23, 2010 at 10:20 pm
District Judge Susan Illston of the Northern District of California conducted a bench trial of plaintiff’s overtime claim under the Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”) and found that defendant UPS met its burden of proving that plaintiff was properly classified as falling within the administrative exemption in his role as “On-Job Supervisor”. Lopez v. United Parcel Service, Inc., C 08-05396 SI, 2010 WL 3630619 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 14, 2010).
Background
Plaintiff Ben Lopez sued defendant United Parcel Service, Inc. (“UPS”) contending that UPS improperly classified him as an employee exempt from overtime compensation under California law. Id. *1. Read the rest of this entry »
