Case Results

Aanerud, et al. v. Neumann LTD, et al. – Case No. 34-2014-00169720 (Sac. Sup. Ct.)

Plaintiffs alleged parking valets were not paid overtime and minimum wages, were subjected to unlawful deduction policies, and not provided meal and rest periods.

Acosta v. Acosta Sales, LLC, et al. – Case No. 2:11-CV-01796 (C.D. Cal.)

Plaintiffs alleged failure to pay overtime, off-the-clock wages, reimbursement, among other unpaid wages owed. This case was a national class action and collective action that extended beyond California and involved the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Adams-Anguay v. Placer Title Company, et al., Case No. S-CV-0040845 (Placer Sup. Ct.)

The plaintiff alleged that defendants failed to pay all wages owed, including gender pay disparities in violation of the California Equal Pay Act.

Acosta v. Evergreen Moneysource Mortgage Company – Case No. 34-2017-00206904 (Sac. Sup. Ct.)

The plaintiffs alleged the failure to pay contract wages, failure to pay all wages due at separation, the failure to provide sick time, the failure to provide accurate paystubs, and derivative violations under the Private Attorneys General Act.

Arnall v. North American Merchandising Service Inc. – Case No. 06AS01439 (Sac. Sup. Ct.)

The plaintiff alleged that employees were not paid overtime for all hours worked in excess of eight (8) hours per day and/or 40 hours per week.

Arrington, et al. v. Capital Express Lines, Inc., et al. – Case No. 34-2012-00134195 (Sac. Sup. Ct.)

The plaintiffs alleged that the employer 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. The plaintiffs also alleged the employer failed to pay wages for hours spent loading/unloading trucks or waiting in the trucks and failed to reimburse plaintiffs for expenses associated with their travel.

Azzolino v. Brake Masters of Sacramento, LLC, Case No. 34-2017-00218293 (Sac. Sup. Ct.)

Plaintiff alleged that Defendants failed to pay overtime and failed to provide all meal and rest periods in accordance with California law.

Bershell v. Dignity Health, et al., Case No. 34-2017-0022269 (Sac. Sup. Ct.)

The plaintiff alleged that the defendant failed to provide all meal and rest periods in accordance with California law, thus leading to claims for unpaid meal period premiums.

Blig v. Medical Management International, Inc., Case No. 34-2017-00213906 (Sac. Sup. Ct.)

Plaintiff alleged that the defendant failed to pay all overtime due and provided inaccurate wage statements under the Private Attorneys General Act.

Camacho, et al. v. Z Street, Inc. d.b.a. Tower Caf, et al. – Case No. 34-2014-00163880 (Sac. Sup. Ct.)

Plaintiffs are Spanish speakers who brought claims for meal and rest period violations and paycheck stub violations. Defendants had a policy to automatically clock out workers for 30 minutes whether they took the full meal break or not.

Cannon v. Miller Event Management, Inc., et al. – Case No. 34-2014-00168103 (Sac. Sup. Ct.)

Plaintiff and others worked as event staff at various entertainment venues. Defendant failed to pay overtime, pay minimum wages, provide meal and rest periods, and subjected employees to unlawful deduction policies.

Carlos v. Abel Mendoza, Inc., et al. – Case No. 34-2016-00195806 (Sac. Sup. Ct.)

Plaintiffs alleged they were not provided all meal and rest periods and they were not compensated for all such meal and rest periods, particularly the second meal period in a workday.

Carr, et al. v. CableCom, LLC, Case No. 34-2017-00212739 (Sac. Sup. Ct)

Plaintiffs alleged the defendant failed to compensate them for all nonproductive time under a piece-rate compensation agreement and failed to provide reimbursement or rest periods in accordance with California Law.

Cirrincione v. American Scissor Lift, Inc., et al., Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2018-4608 (San Joaquin Sup. Ct.)

Plaintiff alleged that Defendant failed to pay proper overtime wages based on the regular rate of pay and failed to provide all meal and rest periods and reimbursement expenses.

Clamens-Hollenback v. Atterro, Inc. – Case No. 17CV305535 (Santa Clara Sup. Ct.)

Plaintiff alleged the unlawful withholding of vacation wages at separation, failure to pay all wages at separation, the failure to maintain a lawful sick leave policy, and failure to provide compliant wage statements.

Colbert v. American Home Craft Inc. – Case No. 05AS05012 (Sac. Sup. Ct.)

Plaintiff alleged that employees, telemarketers, were not paid for all hours worked, failed to receive the correct amount of bonuses, and were forced to report to work and sent home without pay.

Cress, et al. v. Mitsubishi Chemical Carbon Fiber and Composites, Inc., Case No. 34-2017-00222101 (Sac. Sup. Ct.)

The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant failed to pay all overtime due and failed to provide all meal and rest periods to employees.

De Arcos v. Amware Pallet Services, LLC, et al., Case No. CV 17-629 (Yolo Sup. Ct.)

Plaintiff alleged that Defendant failed to provide meal and rest period premiums and failed to provide accurate wage statements.

Garcia v. A-L Financial Corp. – Case No. 34-2014-00171831 (Sac. Sup. Ct.)

The plaintiff alleged that the employer misclassified its employees working as “collectors” and as a result failed to pay overtime and minimum wages as well as failed to pay all reimbursements owed.

Garcia v. Royal Plywood Company, LLC, et al., Case No. 34-2017-00221627 (Sac Sup. Ct.)

Plaintiff alleged that Defendant failed to provide meal and rest period premiums and failed to provide accurate wage statements.

Gerard v. Les Schwab Tires Center of California, Inc. – Case 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 managers

Gilliam v. Matrix Energy Services, Inc. – Case No. RG 11592345 (Alameda Sup. Court)

Plaintiff alleged failure to provide reimbursement expenses for use of personal vehicles, failure to pay all hours worked, and failure to pay overtime under unlawful piece rate and travel time compensation policies.

Gomez v. Mayflower Farms Incorporated, et al. – Case No. CV24157 (Colusa Sup. Ct.)

Plaintiff alleged the failure to pay overtime due to unlawful timekeeping policies, the failure to provide all meal and rest periods due, and other, derivative violations.

Hartwell v. Techforce Telecome, Inc. – Case No. 39-2014-00307197 (San Joaquin Sup. Ct.)

Plaintiff alleged that the employer’s piece-rate compensation system failed to pay for overtime or for all hours worked. Plaintiff also alleged failure to pay reimbursement expenses and failure to provide meal and rest periods.

Heinz v. Wright Tree Services – Case No. 34-2012-00131949 (Sac. Sup. Ct.)

Plaintiff alleged that he and other employees in the tree trimming industry 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 workday, thereby incurring additional overtime hours that were uncompensated.

Hernandez v. Snyir, Inc. dba Two Men and a Truck – Case No. 34-2017-00207641 (Sac. Sup. Ct.)

The plaintiffs alleged the employer failed to pay all wages owed or provide all legally required meal and rest breaks due to its scheduling policies as well as its policies of deducting compensable time and requiring off-the-clock work be performed.

Hernandez, et al. v. MP Nexlevel of California, Inc., et al. – Case No. 3:16-CV-03015-JCS (N.D. Cal.)

Plaintiffs alleged nationwide collective action claims for violating the Fair Labor Standards Act as well as California Class action for failure to pay overtime, minimum wages, provide meal and rest periods, and failure to reimburse all expenses

Hoover v. Mom365, Inc., Case No. 2:17-CV-01328-TLN-CKD (E.D. Cal.)

The plaintiff alleged that the defendant failed to compensate for all nonproductive time, leading to overtime and minimum wages violations as well as inaccurate wage statements.

Jackson v. U.S. Remodelers, Inc. Which Will Do Business in California as Home Depot Interiors, et al., Case No. 19STCV00656 (L.A. Sup. Ct.)

Plaintiff alleged that Defendants failed to pay proper overtime and minimum wages; failed to provide proper meal and rest periods; failed to pay all reimbursement expenses; and failed to provide proper itemized wage statements, resulting in further derivative statutory and civil penalties.

Jaime Alatorre v. SSMB Pacific Holding Company, Inc., et al., Case No. 34-2018-00241404 (Sac. Sup. Ct.)

Plaintiff alleged that Defendants failed to pay proper overtime wages based on the regular rate of pay, which should have incorporated production bonuses.

Jaramillo v. Mayahuel Investors LP, et al., Case No. 34-2017-00207348 (Sac. Sup. Ct.)

Plaintiff alleged that Defendants failed to provide all meal and rest periods and reimbursement expenses, failed to provide split-shift premiums, and failed to keep accurate time records or provide accurate wage statements, resulting in further derivative statutory and civil penalties.

Josol v. Dial Medical Corp – Case No. 34-2008-00010040 (Sac. Sup. Ct.)

The plaintiff alleged unpaid overtime, unpaid reimbursements, and wage statement violations for home health workers.

Martinez v. J.C. Trucking, Inc., et al., Case no. STK-CV-UOE-2019-452 (San Joaquin Sup. Ct.)

Plaintiff alleged that Defendants did not pay all overtime and minimum wages; did not provide all meal and rest periods and reimbursement expenses; and did not provide accurate wage statements.

Muhieddine v. KBA Docusys, Inc., et al. – Case No. 34-2014-00164720 (Sac. Sup. Ct.)

Plaintiff, a technician, alleged that Defendant failed to record time accurately and misclassified him as exempt, resulting in the failure to pay overtime and minimum wages among other derivative statutory violations.

Navarro v. Mike & Tom Geyer, Case No. CV24308 (Colusa Sup. Ct.)

Plaintiff alleged that Defendant failed to provide all meal and rest periods owed to them and failed to pay all wages due.

Olivares v. Ralphs Grocery Company, et al., Case No. 34-2018-00245596 (Sac. Sup. Ct.)

Plaintiff alleged that Defendants did not pay all final wages in a timely manner.

Prasad v. D. G. Smith Enterprises, Inc., Case No. 34-2017-00215046 (Sac. Sup. Ct.)

The plaintiff alleged that the defendant failed to provide all information required on wage statements issued to employees.

Ralston v. JMJ, Inc., et al., Case No. 34-2017-002217047 (Sac. Sup. Ct.)

Plaintiff alleged that Defendant failed to provide all meal and rest periods owed to them.

Rickwalt v. Direct Reconditioning, LLC, et al. – Case No. 34-2015-00175642 (Sac. Sup. Ct.)

The plaintiffs alleged that the employer failed to pay all overtime and minimum wages and rest period premiums due to the defendants’ piece-rate compensation system.

Robinson v. West of Chicago Restaurants, Inc., dba Chicago Fire – Case No. 34-2010-00082201 (Sac Sup. Ct.)

Plaintiffs alleged the employer failed to provide employees with meal and rest periods, triggering derivative penalty claims.

Rogers v. Les Schwab Tires Center of California, Inc. – Case 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.

Romaine v. Queen of the Valley Medical Center, et al., Case No. 18CV001642 (Napa Sup. Ct.)

Plaintiff alleged that Defendants did not pay proper overtime wages due to regular rate of pay calculation errors, did not pay all minimum wages, did not provide all meal or rest periods, did not provide accurate itemized wage statements, and did not keep accurate time records, resulting in further derivative penalties.

Romero, et al. v. University Retirement Community at Davis, Inc., et al., Case No. CV17-810 (Yolo Sup. Ct.)

The plaintiffs alleged that Defendant did pay proper overtime wages and meal period premiums due to the regular rate of pay calculation.

Scarano v. J. R. Putman, Inc., et al., Case No. 34-2018-00244753 (Sac. Sup. Ct.)

Plaintiff alleged that Defendants did not pay all overtime and minimum wages; did not provide all meal and rest periods and reimbursement expenses; did not provide accurate wage statements; failed to provide written commissions contracts; and failed to provide paid sick leave, resulting in further derivative statutory and civil penalties.

Schechter et al. v. Isys Solutions, Inc. – Case No. RG10550517 (Alameda Sup. Ct.)

Plaintiffs were nurses who worked from home and traveled to different destinations to provide care. The Complaint alleged failure by the company to pay overtime, off the clock wages, and unreimbursed expenses.

Smith v. Capitol Administrators, Inc. – Case No. 34-2015-00183516 (Sac. Sup. Ct.)

The plaintiff alleged the employer provided noncompliant wage statements, triggering statutory and civil penalties.

Sullivan v. National Response Corporation, et al., Case No. 34-2018-00244757 (Sac. Sup. Ct.)

Plaintiff alleged that Defendants did not pay all overtime and minimum wages; did not provide all meal and rest periods and reimbursement expenses; did not provide accurate wage statements; failed to provide wages in a timely manner; and failed to keep accurate time records, resulting in further derivative statutory and civil penalties.

Talent v. Leslie’s Poolmart, Inc. – Case No. 34-2012-00128539 (Sac. Sup. Ct.)

The plaintiffs claimed that the employer failed to provide tools and failed to reimburse employees for tools they had to purchase.

Toupe, et al. v. Phenomenex, Inc., et al. – Case No. 16-CV-9562 (Amador Sup. Ct.)

The plaintiffs alleged that the employer unlawfully failed to pay overtime and minimum wages, provide meal and rest periods, or provide accurate wage statements with derivative PAGA violations due to rounding, deduction, and scheduling policies.

Waltrip v. Service Now Enterprises, Inc., et al., Case No. S-CV-0040581 (Placer Sup. Ct.)

The plaintiff alleged that defendants failed to pay for all nonproductive time, leading to unpaid overtime, minimum wages and inaccurate wage statements being issued to employees.

Watson v. Quarter at a Time, LLC, et al., Case No. 34-2017-00217570 (Sac. Sup. Ct.)

Plaintiff alleged that Defendants engaged in an unlawful tip-pooling system and required employees to work off the clock, leading to unpaid wages and unpaid tips.

Williams v. Civic Development Group – Case No. 06AS00267 (Sac. Sup. Ct.)

The plaintiff alleged that telemarketers were not provided full 10-minute rest breaks for each four hours worked.