What Is This Case About. Xxxxxxxxxxx Xxxxxxxxx worked as a part-time instructor and full-time faculty member for CSU in California during the Class Period. He is the “Plaintiff” in this case and is suing on behalf of himself and Class Members for CSU’s alleged failure to pay wages for all hours worked, including overtime, failure to provide Class Members with legally compliant rest breaks, failure to pay all wages owed upon separation from employment, failure to furnish timely and accurate wage statements, and failure to reimburse for necessary expenses. CSU vigorously denies all of the allegations made by Plaintiff and denies that it violated any law. The Court has made no ruling on the merits of Plaintiff’s claims. The Court has only preliminarily approved a Class Action Settlement Agreement. The Court will decide whether to give final approval to the Settlement at the Final Fairness and Approval Hearing.
What Is This Case About. Plaintiff Xxxxx Xxxx (“Plaintiff”), a former employee of Defendants, commenced this class and representative action lawsuit against Defendants for alleged wage-and-hour violations in the Santa Xxxxx County Superior Court (Case Number 20CV375150). Plaintiff’s lawsuit against Defendants sought civil penalties, attorneys’ fees and other relief based on alleged violations of the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (“PAGA”) for underlying violations of the California Labor Code, including: 1) failure to pay overtime; 2) failure to provide meal period premiums; 3) failure to provide rest break premiums; 4) failure to pay minimum wages; 5) failure to timely pay final wages to terminated employees; 6) failure to comply with employee wage statement provisions of the California Labor Code; and 7) violation of the Unfair Competition Law. On May 11, 2022, Plaintiff amended his Complaint to add causes of action alleging class claims for Defendants’ violation of the California Labor Code as alleged in his representative PAGA Complaint. The Court has not determined whether the claims advanced by Plaintiff have any merit. Nor has it decided whether this case could proceed as a class or representative action. Instead, both sides agreed to resolve the Class Action with no decision or admission of who is right or wrong. In other words, the Court has not determined that Defendants violated any laws, nor has it decided in favor of Plaintiff or Defendants (the “Parties”); instead, both sides have agreed to resolve the Class Action with no decision or admission of who is right or wrong. By agreeing to resolve the Class Action, the Parties avoid the risks and costs of a trial. Defendants deny all allegations made by Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of Class Members, in the Class Action and deny liability for any wrongdoing with respect to the alleged facts or causes of action asserted in the Class Action. The Settlement is not an admission by Defendants of any wrongdoing or an indication that any law has been violated.
What Is This Case About. The class action lawsuit is called Xxxxx Xxxxx v. Safe Haven Security Services, Inc. and is pending in the San Bernardino County Superior Court, Case No. CIVDS1924470. It was commenced by a former employee of Safe Haven named Xxxxx Xxxxx. Xx. Xxxxx is what is referred to as the “Plaintiff” or “Class Representative” in this case. The settlement resolves claims against Safe Haven for failing to provide employees with lawful meal and rest periods, failing to pay employees all wages owed, failing to reimburse employees for all business expenses, failing to provide employees with lawful paycheck stubs, failing to pay employees who no longer work for Safe Haven all wages owed at the termination of his or her employment. Safe Haven strongly denies liability for all of Plaintiff’s claims, and contends that it fully complied with California law during the Class Period. For example, Safe Haven contends that it paid employees for all time worked, encouraged employees to submit time card alterations when an employee engaged in any alleged off the clock work, allowed and required employees to take lunch and rest breaks, and reimbursed any employees for any business expenses which they paid or incurred. The Court has not decided whether Plaintiff or Safe Haven is correct. Plaintiff would still have had to successfully certify the class and prove his claims at trial on a classwide basis. However, the Parties have concluded that it is in their respective best interests and the interests of the Class Members to settle this lawsuit on the terms summarized in this Notice.
What Is This Case About. The class action lawsuit is called Xxxxxxxx Xxxxx x. Xxxx Industries, Inc.; Xxxx Industries Group, Inc. and is pending in the San Bernardino County Superior Court, Case No. CIVSB2024674. It was commenced by a former employee of Xxxx named Xxxxxxxx Xxxxx. Xx. Xxxxx is what is referred to as the “Plaintiff” or “Class Representative” in this case. Xx. Xxxxx alleged that Xxxx failed to provide employees with lawful meal and rest periods, failed to pay employees all wages owed, failed to reimburse employees for all business expenses, failed to provide employees with lawful paycheck stubs, and failed to pay employees who no longer work for Xxxx all wages owed at the termination of his or her employment. Xxxx strongly denies liability for all of Plaintiff’s claims, and contends that it fully complied with California law during the Class Period. The Court has not decided whether Plaintiff or Xxxx is correct. Plaintiff would still have had to successfully certify the class and prove his claims at trial on a classwide basis. However, the Parties have concluded that it is in their respective best interests and the interests of the Class Members to settle this lawsuit on the terms summarized in this Notice.
What Is This Case About. On January 7, 2022, Plaintiff Xxxxx Xxxxxx (“Plaintiff”), a former employee of Lyrical Foods, Inc. d/b/a Kite Hill Co. (“Defendant”) initiated a class action lawsuit against Defendant in the Superior Court of California, County of Alameda (the “Action”). He believed Defendant was violating the California Labor Code with respect to all of Defendant’s hourly employees in California. Specifically, Plaintiff stated his belief that Defendant was violating Labor Code provisions related to properly paying employees all wages owed, including minimum and overtime wages; properly compensating employees for missed, interrupted, short, and late meal and rest breaks; paying employees all wages owed in a timely manner both during employment and upon discharge or termination; providing employees with complete and accurate wage statements; keeping complete and accurate payroll records; and reimbursing employees for all necessary business-related expenses. A copy of Plaintiff’s complaint can be found at: [URL of Settlement Website]. / / / Plaintiff and Defendant (collectively, the “Parties”) attended a mediation on November 17, 2022, to attempt to resolve the claims Plaintiff made against Defendant in the Action without going to trial. With the help of the mediator, the Parties were able to reach the proposed Settlement of the Action. On January 20, 2023, Plaintiff gave notice to the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency (“LWDA”) that he believed Defendant was violating the California Labor Code with respect to all of Defendant’s hourly employees in California. Specifically, Plaintiff stated his belief that Defendant was violating Labor Code provisions related to properly paying employees all wages owed, including minimum and overtime wages; properly compensating employees for missed, interrupted, short, and late meal and rest breaks; paying employees all wages owed in a timely manner both during employment and upon discharge or termination; providing employees with complete and accurate wage statements; keeping complete and accurate payroll records; and reimbursing employees for all necessary business-related expenses. A copy of Plaintiff’s letter to the LWDA can be found at: [URL of Settlement Website]. Plaintiff also filed a First Amended Complaint adding a cause of action for violation of Labor Code section 2698, et seq. (Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 ((“PAGA”)). The Court has not made any determination as to whether Plaintiff’s claims have any meri...
What Is This Case About. On April 15, 2020, Plaintiff Xxxxxxxxx Xxxxxxxt, a former employee of The 21st Amendment Brewery Cafe, LLC (“Defendant”), gave notice to the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency (“LWDA”) that she believed Defendant was violating the California Labor Code with respect to all of Defendant’s hourly employees in California. Specifically, Plaintiff stated her belief that Defendant was violating Labor Code provisions related to properly paying employees for all hours worked; properly paying minimum and overtime wages; properly compensating employees for missed, interrupted, short, and late meal and rest breaks; paying employees all earned and unpaid wages in a timely manner upon employees’ discharge or termination; paying employees all wages due to them in a timely manner; providing employees with complete and accurate wage statements; keeping complete and accurate payroll records showing the hours worked daily by and the wages paid to employees; and reimbursing employees for all necessary business-related costs and expenses. The relevant Labor Code sections are sections 201, 202, 203, 204, 218.5, 221, 226(a), 226.3, 226.7, 510, 512(a), 558, 1174(d), 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, 2800 and 2802. On June 29, 2020, after she sent the letter to the LWDA, Plaintiff initiated a PAGA-only lawsuit against Defendant in the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco. A PAGA lawsuit is a type of representative lawsuit authorized by the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA), which allows aggrieved employees to file lawsuits to recover civil penalties on behalf of themselves, other employees, and the State of California for violations of the California Labor Code. An aggrieved employee is any person who was employed by the alleged Labor Code violator and against whom one or more of the alleged Labor Code violations was committed. An employee who files a PAGA lawsuit is acting as an agent of California’s labor law enforcement agencies, who have the power to initiate an enforcement action directly. Plaintiff’s PAGA-only lawsuit was based on the Labor Code violations Plaintiff believes Defendant committed, described in the paragraph above. Plaintiff and Defendant (collectively, the “Parties”) attended a mediation with mediator Xxxxxxx X. Xxxs on August 30, 2021, to attempt to resolve the claims Plaintiff made against Defendant in the Action without going to trial. With the help of the mediator, the Parties were able to reach the proposed Se...
What Is This Case About. The action entitled Xxxxxxxx Xxxxx on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public, Plaintiff, vs. Roadrunner Transportation Services, Inc. and Central Cal Transportation, LLC, Defendants, was commenced on May 12, 2015 in the Alameda Superior Court (Case Number RG15770011). This action was brought against Defendants seeking damages, restitution, penalties, interests, costs and attorney’s fees and other relief based on the following alleged causes of action: 1) wage theft/time shaving; 2) failure to pay compensation for all time worked; 3) failure to provide meal periods; 4) failure to authorize and permit rest periods; 5) knowing and intentional failure to comply with itemized employee wage statement provisions; 6) waiting time penalties; and 7) violation of the Unfair Competition Law. As part of preliminary approval, Plaintiff Xxxxx amended his complaint to add in a cause of action under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (“PAGA”). The Court has not made any determination as to whether the claims advanced by the Plaintiff Xxxxx have any merit. In other words, the Court has not determined whether any laws have been violated, nor has it decided in favor of Plaintiff Xxxxx or Defendants; instead, both sides agreed to resolve the lawsuit with no decision or admission of who is right or wrong. By agreeing to resolve the lawsuit, all parties avoid the risks and cost of a trial. Defendants expressly denies that it did anything wrong or that it violated the law and further denies any liability whatsoever to Plaintiff Xxxxx or to the Class.
