Class Actions

The Shimoda Law Corp. has settled and is litigating the following class action lawsuits on behalf of employees in California:

Alvarez v. All Maintenance Inc., No. 34-2013-00156386 (Sac. Sup. Ct.)
  • Plaintiff has brought class and PAGA claims for overtime wages, minimum wages, and reimbursement for misclassifying him and others as independent contractors. This case is currently in discovery.


  • Hartwell v. Techforce Telecome, Inc., 39-2014-00307197 (San Joaquin Sup. Ct.)
  • Plaintiff alleges that he and others were not paid overtime wages, minimum wages, reimbursement expenses, among others. This case is currently in discovery.


  • Heinz v. Wright Tree Services, No. 34-2012-00131949 (Sac. Sup. Ct.)
  • Plaintiffs allege that he and other putative class members worked in the tree trimming industry, that they worked under several prevailing wage classifications without being paid the prevailing wage for each type of work performed, and that they were required to work prior to the official start of their work day, thereby incurring additional overtime hours that were uncompensated. The case is in discovery.


  • Arrington v. Capital Express Lines, Inc., et al.,No. 34-2012-00134195 (Sac. Sup. Ct)
  • Plaintiffs allege that Defendant paid truck drivers under a piece rate system (where Plaintiffs earned money based only on miles driven) that did not comply with California’s minimum wage law. Defendant failed to pay Plaintiffs wages for hours spent loading/unloading trucks or waiting in the trucks and failed to reimburse Plaintiffs for expenses associated with their travel.


  • Talent v. Leslie’s Poolmart, Inc., Case No. 34-2012-00128539 (Sac. Sup. Ct.)
  • Plaitniffs claimed that Defendant failed to provide tools and failed to reimburse employees for tools they had to purchase. This case has settled and Plaintiffs are currently finalizing the settlement with the Court.


  • 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.
  • This case has settled for $450,000 and payments have been mailed to class members.


  • 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.
  • This case has settled for $9.9 million dollars and payments have been mailed to class members.


  • 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.
  • This case has settled for $900,000 and payments have been mailed to class members.


  • Robinson v. West of Chicago Restaurants Inc. (dba as Chicago Fire), Case No. 2010-00082201 (Sac. Sup. Ct.)
  • Plaintiff alleges that the company failed to provide him and other similarly situated employees meal and rest periods as required by law. This case settled and Plaintiff is preparing for preliminary approval of settlement.
  • This case has settled and payments have been mailed to class members.


  • 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.
  • This case settled.


  • 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.)
  • Plaintiff alleged that employees were not paid overtime for all hours worked in excess of eight hours per day and/or 40 hours per week. This case has resolved and the Sacramento Superior Court approved monetary relief for class members.


  • Gerard v. Les Schwab Tires Center of California, Inc., No. 34-2007-30000003 (Sac. Sup. Ct.)
  • Plaintiff alleged that salaried employees unlawfully lost vacation pay based on a use-it or lose-it policy and that Defendant misclassified Store Manager. Plaintiff’s Motion for Certification was granted as to the vacation pay issue.

  • Rogers v. Les Schab Tires Center of California, Inc. No. 34-2009-00066320 (Sac. Sup. Ct.)
  • Plaintiff alleged that he and other assistant managers were misclassified and failed to receive proper overtime and meal and rest breaks. This case settled for $5 million dollars and monies have been disbursed.


  • Aymer v. Sutter Health et al., No. 34-2008-00003432 (Sac. Sup. Ct.)
  • Plaintiff alleges that hourly employees including nurses were not provided meal and rest breaks in violation of California law. This case is currently being consolidated with other similar class actions filed. The case is currently in discovery.
  • Certification was denied by the Court and is up on appeal.


  • Josol v. Dial Medical Corp., No. 34-2008-00010040 (Sac. Sup. Ct.)
  • Plaintiff alleges that hourly employees including nurses were not reimbursed for mileage, overtime, and hours worked in violation of California law. The Court granted certification in this case.
  • This case has settled and the parties are working on dispositional papers for the Court.


  •