| CLASS ACTIONS |
The Shimoda Law Corp. has settled and is litigating the following class action lawsuits
on behalf of employees in California:
|
| Gasbarro v. Kovars, Inc., Case No. 34-2011-00097883 (Sacramento Sup. Court) |
-
Plaintiff alleges Defendant required all employees to sign a covenant not to compete in violation of the California Business and Professions Code section 16600.
-
The parties are in the early stages of pleadings and discovery.
|
| Gilliam v. Matrix Energy Services, Inc., Case No. RG 11592345 (Alameda Sup. Court) |
-
Plaintiff is alleging failure to provide reimbursement expenses for use of personal vehicles, failure to pay all hours worked, and failure to pay overtime.
-
The parties are in the pleading stage.
|
| Acosta v. Acosta Sales, LLC, et al., No. Case No. 2:11-CV-01796 (C.D. Cal.) |
-
Plaintiffs allege failure to pay overtime, off the clock wages, reimbursement, among other wages owed. This case is a multi-national class action that extends beyond California and involves the FLSA.
-
The parties are currently engaged in discovery.
|
| Schechter et al. v. Isys Solutions, Inc., Case No. RG10550517 (Alameda Sup. Ct.) |
-
This case involves nurses who work from home and travel to different destinations. The Complaint alleges failure by the company to pay overtime, off the clock wages, and reimbursement wages.
-
The case is currently in discovery and depositions.
|
| Robinson v. West of Chicago Restaurants Inc. (dba as Chicago Fire), Case No. 2010-00082201 (Sac. Sup. Ct.) |
| |
| Fowler v. Huisman Auction, Inc. Case No. 34-2009-00058597 (Sac. Sup. Ct.) |
-
This case is an individual action brought on behalf of “similarly situated” employees under the Private Attorney General Act (Labor Code section 2699 et al.). Plaintiff has alleged violations of overtime, meal and rest breaks, and inaccurate paystubs.
-
Plaintiff is in discovery, seeking to obtain the names and contact information of all “similarly situated” employees.
|
| Colbert v. American Home Craft Inc., No. 05AS05012 (Sac. Sup. Ct.) |
-
This case involved telemarketers who were not paid for all
hours worked, failed to receive the correct amount of bonuses,
and were forced to report to work and then sent home without
pay.
-
The case settled and was approved by the Sacramento Superior
Court. The settlement included monetary and non-monetary
relief including immediate compliance with wage and hour laws.
|
| Williams v. Civic Development Group, No. 06AS00267 (Sac. Sup. Ct.) |
- Plaintiff alleged that telemarketers were not provided full 10
minute breaks for each four hours worked and not paid for their rest
breaks. This case has resolved and the Sacramento Superior
Court approved monetary and non-monetary relief as part of the
settlement to putative class members.
|
| Arnall v. North American Merchandising Service Inc., No. 06AS01439 (Sac. Sup. Ct.) |
|
|