The Reversal in a Far-Reaching Toxic Exposure Case

In a far-reaching toxic exposure case, the District Court's dismissal was reversed on appeal when the Supreme Court of Nevada ruled in favor of the injured plaintiffs.

The Case: Adkins et al. vs. Union Pacific Railroad Company et al.

The Court: Nevada Supreme Court

The Case No.: 85569

The Plaintiff: Adkins et al. vs. Union Pacific Railroad Company.

The plaintiffs, Melinda Adkins et al., worked at Clark County Government Center (CCGC), where they were allegedly exposed to toxic chemicals. The exposure eventually led to personal injury and wrongful death claims after numerous Clark County employees contracted terminal cancer, and the exposure led to multiple employee deaths. According to the complaint, toxic chemicals were released on a Union Pacific property. After the CCGC opened on the same property in 1995, their on-site workers started to get sick. Workers also noticed black soot accumulating in air vents and workstations. However, Clark County reassured their workers - insisting the site was safe. In 2020, experts established the connection between the CCGC workers' illnesses and the toxic exposure linked back to when Union Pacific Railroad Company owned the property. Plaintiffs argue that they could not have discovered the link between their illnesses and toxic exposure until 2020 when experts established the connection. Wrongful death claims continued to arbitration.

In District Court: Adkins et al. vs. Union Pacific Railroad Company, et al.

In Clark County's Eighth Judicial District Court, the plaintiffs' first amended complaint was dismissed after the court concluded that the claims were time-barred since the statute didn't specify discovery-rule tolling. (The court ruled that the discovery rule didn't apply to the two-year statute of limitations (NRS 11.190(4)(e)).

In Appellate Court: Adkins et al. vs. Union Pacific Railroad Company, et al.

On appeal, the Nevada Supreme Court reversed the district court's decision after a review. The Supreme Court held that the discovery rule (NRS 11.190(4)(e) could apply despite the specific language referencing discovery-rule tolling emphasizing that fairness and justice require a claim not accrue until the claimant is aware or "should be" aware of the possibility of a claim based on reasonable diligence. The court also pointed out that the plaintiffs raised issues of fact about their awareness of the cause of action and the concealment of relevant information (on the part of the defendant). The Supreme Court also found the district court erred by not considering equitable tolling and remanded the case for additional proceedings.

Supreme Court of Nevada's Reversal: Adkins et al. vs. Union Pacific Railroad Company

The Nevada Supreme Court's reversal of the district court's dismissal in Adkins et al. vs. Union Pacific Railroad Company et al. made it possible for the plaintiffs to proceed with their personal injury and wrongful death based on toxic exposure claims. Based on the Supreme Court's findings, the case could proceed to discovery and trial. The findings on appeal emphasized the applicability of the discovery rule and equitable tolling. The decision allowing the plaintiffs' claims to move forward despite the initial statute of limitations dismissal was a notable victory for the plaintiffs that reinforced the protections the law offers for individuals harmed by corporate negligence.

If you have questions about filing a California wrongful death lawsuit, please contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Knowledgeable wrongful death attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in Riverside, San Francisco, Sacramento, San Diego, Los Angeles, and Chicago.

Traumatic Brain Injury Lawsuits: Is Submission of Medical Records an Abuse of Discretion?

Following a rear-ending car incident in 2017, Samantha Braun claimed various injuries including traumatic brain injury, while the other party admitted fault.

The Case: Braun v. Wollman

The Court: South Dakota Supreme Court

The Case No.: 30440-a-PJD

The Plaintiff: Braun v. Wollman

The plaintiff, Samantha Braun, filed a traumatic brain injury lawsuit and the case proceeded to a jury trial to determine damages. Claming various injuries in addition to trauamatic brain injury, Braun sought significant damages.

The Defendant: Braun v. Wollman

The defendant, Wollman, admitted fault for the vehicular accident.

The Trial: Braun v. Wollman

During the trial, Braun objected to the submission of several of her medical records citing business records hearsay exception. The Circuit Court of the Fifth Judicial Circuit overruled most of Braun’s objections and admitted the records. After the jury awarded her $125,000 (a significantly lower amount than she originally requested in damages), Braun appealed, claiming that the admission of her medical records was an abuse of discretion that prejudiced her right to a fair trial.

On Appeal: Braun v. Wollman

Braun appealed the $125,000 in damages awarded by the Circuit Court of the Fifth Judicial Circuit Jury, claiming the admission of her medical records was prejudicial and erroneous. After reviewing the case, the Supreme Court of South Dakota found that the circuit court erred in admitting the medical records under the business records exception since there did not appear to be sufficient foundation. They also determined that Braun’s statements in the records were admissible as non-hearsay, and some statements were admissible under the medical diagnosis or treatment exception. However, the Supreme Court concluded that Braun, the plaintiff, did not demonstrate substantial prejudice affecting the jury verdict and affirmed the circuit court’s decision upholding the $125,000 award of damages.

If you have questions about filing a California traumatic brain injury lawsuit, please contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Knowledgeable traumatic brain injury attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in Riverside, San Francisco, Sacramento, San Diego, Los Angeles, and Chicago.

WFG National Title Insurance Company Lawsuit: Should California Employers Reimburse Business Expenses?

A recent California lawsuit raises the question: Should California employers reimburse their employees for necessary business expenses?

The Case: Gina Isola v. WFG National Title Insurance Company

The Court: Sonoma County Superior Court

The Case No.: 24CV06420

The Plaintiff: Gina Isola v. WFG National Title Insurance Company

The plaintiff, Gina Isola, worked for WFG National Title Insurance Company for about a year, from May 2023 through May 2024, as a nonexempt hourly employee entitled to labor law protections. During Isola's employment, she (and other employees in similar situations) were allegedly required to use their personal cellular phones to complete their job duties. Isola's complaint alleges that WFG National Title Insurance Company failed to reimburse their workers for required business expenses, which caused lost wages and inaccurate wage statements. In response, Isola filed a California class action alleging the company violated California Labor Laws.

The Defendant: Gina Isola v. WFG National Title Insurance Company

The defendant, WFG National Title Insurance Company, provides title writing services in California. According to Isola's complaint, the company allegedly failed to reimburse their employees for necessary business expenses.

Does California Labor Code Require Business Expense Reimbursement?

According to California Labor Code 2802, California employers must reimburse employees if they incur expenses to fulfill their job duties. California law states, "An employer shall indemnify his or her employee for all necessary expenditures or losses incurred by the employee in direct consequence of the discharge of his or her duties..."

The Allegations: Gina Isola v. WFG National Title Insurance Company

Isola claims that WFG National Title Insurance Company engaged in multiple violations of the California Labor Code. In addition to violations of Calif. Labor Code 2802, Isola claims the company's day-to-day practices resulted in violations of Calif. Labor Code § 226 - which requires California employers to provide workers with an accurate itemized wage statement. An accurate itemized wage statement should include specific information, including all applicable hourly rates used during the pay period, the dates of the current pay period, and the total hours the employee worked during the pay period. According to the Gina Isola v. WFG National Title Insurance Company complaint, the wage statements generated by the defendant did not include the required information.

The Case: Gina Isola v. WFG National Title Insurance Company

The California class action lawsuit, Gina Isola v. WFG National Title Insurance Company, is pending in the Sonoma County Superior Court.

If you have questions about filing a California class action lawsuit, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Knowledgeable employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in Riverside, San Francisco, Sacramento, San Diego, Los Angeles, and Chicago.

Did The Imagine Group, LLC Fail to Pay Their California Employees?

In a recent lawsuit, an Imagine Group employee claims the company failed to provide him full wages for his hours.

The Case: Eric Martin v. The Imagine Group, LLC

The Court: Los Angeles County Superior Court

The Case No.: 24STCV27564

The Plaintiff: Eric Martin v. The Imagine Group, LLC

The plaintiff, Eric Martin, filed a class action complaint alleging that The Imagine Group, LLC violated the California Labor Code. As a California employer, The Imagine Group, LLC was required to pay their workers for all the time they worked (defined as time an employee is under their employee's control, including the time a worker is "permitted or suffered" to work). According to Martin's complaint, The Imagine Group had employees occasionally complete "off-the-clock" work without providing payment. Since off-the-clock work does not qualify for overtime premium payment, the plaintiff and others in similar scenarios at The Imagine Group faced alleged minimum wage and overtime violations.

The Defendant: Eric Martin v. The Imagine Group, LLC

The Imagine Group, LLC allegedly failed to record all their California employees' hours accurately. According to the complaint filed by Martin, the plaintiff, inaccurate recording of employee hours led to lost wages and inaccurate wage statements.

The Allegations: Eric Martin v. The Imagine Group, LLC

Martin claims that The Imagine Group, LLC engaged in several labor law violations connected to their standard operating processes. The lawsuit alleges Labor Code § 2699 violations and California Labor Code §§ 1194, 1197, 1197.1, and 226. In addition to minimum and overtime wage violation allegations, the plaintiff also included allegations that The Imagine Group failed to provide accurate itemized wage statements (as required by California Labor Code § 226). According to labor law, employers must provide employees with an accurate wage statement for each pay period that includes applicable hourly rates, total hours worked, and dates of the current pay period. However, the plaintiff claims that wage statements from The Imagine Group did not contain all the necessary information.

The Case: Eric Martin v. The Imagine Group, LLC

The California class action lawsuit, Eric Martin v. The Imagine Group, LLC, is pending in the Los Angeles County Superior Court.

If you have questions about filing a California overtime pay lawsuit, please contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Knowledgeable employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in Riverside, San Francisco, Sacramento, San Diego, Los Angeles, and Chicago.

California’s Metal Container (MCC) Faces a PAGA-Only Action Claiming Violations

In a recent PAGA-Only action, Metal Container, a California product packaging service provider, faces allegations of labor code violations.

The Case: John Dedet v. Metal Container (MCC) LP

The Court: Los Angeles County Superior Court

The Case No.: CVRI2405838

The Plaintiff: John Dedet v. Metal Container (MCC) LP

The plaintiff, John Dedet, worked for Metal Container (MCC) from July 2021 through June 2024 as an hourly nonexempt employee. As a nonexempt hourly employee, Dedet was entitled to labor law protections, including minimum wage requirements, overtime pay regulations, mandatory meal breaks and rest periods, and more.

The Defendant: John Dedet v. Metal Container (MCC) LP

The defendant, Metal Container (MCC) LP, is a California company and employer that provides product packaging services throughout the state—according to the plaintiff, Dedet, Metal Container (MCC) LP failed to provide their workers with meal breaks and rest breaks mandated by labor law. Failing to comply with rest period and meal break requirments often leads to additional violations. In this case, the plaintiff claims the standard practice allegedly meant lost wages for workers.

The Allegations: John Dedet v. Metal Container (MCC) LP

Dedet claims that Metal Container engaged in several labor law violations that were connected to their standard operating processes. The PAGA-Only action alleges violations of Labor Code § 2699 and California Labor Code §§ 201-203, 204, 210, 218, 221, 226(a), 226.7, 227.3, 246, 510, 512, 558(a)(1)(2), 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, 2100, and 2802.

What's the Definition of California's PAGA-Only Action?

In California, employees have the right to initiate a lawsuit under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA), which serves as a tool for the state to uphold labor laws via employees who act on behalf of the state's labor enforcement agencies. A PAGA-only lawsuit primarily serves as a regulatory measure to safeguard public interests, not for the personal gain of any individual. Instead of pursuing personal damages or restitution, this type of action empowers an employee to act as a private enforcer of the California Labor Code, effectively granting them the role of a private attorney general.

The Case: John Dedet v. Metal Container (MCC) LP

In John Dedet v. Metal Container (MCC) LP, the plaintiff filed a PAGA-Only action currently pending in the Riverside County Superior Court.

If you have questions about filing a California PAGA-Only action, don't hesitate to get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Knowledgeable employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in Riverside, San Francisco, Sacramento, San Diego, Los Angeles, and Chicago.

RA Sushi Faces a PAGA-Only Action Alleging Labor Code Violations

In a recent California class action, California employees claimed that Ra Sushi Tustin Corp. violated California labor law.

The Case: Candace Hudnell v. Ra Sushi Tustin Corp.

The Court: Los Angeles County Superior Court

The Case No.: 24TRCV03494

The Plaintiff: Candace Hudnell v. Ra Sushi Tustin Corp.

The plaintiff, Candace Hudnell, filed a California class action alleging that RA Sushi Tustin Corp. violated Labor Code § 2699 after allegedly failing to provide the plaintiff (and other similarly situated employees) with legally required meal and rest breaks.

The Defendant: Candace Hudnell v. Ra Sushi Tustin Corp.

The defendant, RA Sushi Tustin Corp., allegedly failed to provide employees with labor code-mandated meal breaks and rest periods. This was allegedly a standard practice during the plaintiff’s time with the company, causing the plaintiff and other employees to receive incomplete wages. Specifically, the plaintiff claims that RA Sushi workers were sometimes required to work more than four (4) hours without the ten-minute rest periods and off-duty breaks that California employers must provide for their hourly nonexempt employees.

Note: The California Supreme Court defined off-duty rest periods as the time during which an employee is relieved from all work-related duties and free from employer control.

The Allegations: Candace Hudnell v. Ra Sushi Tustin Corp.

Hudnell claims that Ra Sushi Tustin Corp. engaged in multiple labor law violations. The lawsuit seeks penalties for alleged violations of California Labor Code §§ 201-203, 204, 210, 218, 221, 226(a), 226.7, 227.3, 246, 510, 512, 558(a)(1)(2), 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, 2100, and 2802.

What is a PAGA-Only Action?

In California, an employee can sue under the PAGA; this mechanism allows the State to enforce state labor laws with the employee acting as the proxy or agent of the State’s labor law enforcement agency. A PAGA-Only action is essentially a law enforcement action intended to protect the public rather than benefit any private party. Rather than seeking to recover damages or restitution, the PAGA-Only action “deputizes” a citizen/employee as a private attorney general to enforce the California Labor Code.

The Case: Candace Hudnell v. Ra Sushi Tustin Corp.

The plaintiff filed a PAGA-Only action, and the case is pending in the Los Angeles County Superior Court.

If you have questions about filing a California PAGA-Only action, please contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Knowledgeable employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in Riverside, San Francisco, Sacramento, San Diego, Los Angeles, and Chicago.

Employees at Valencia H. Motors, Inc. Claim Company Didn’t Provide Full Wages

A Valencia H. Motors, Inc. employee recently filed a class action lawsuit claiming that the California company habitually shorted employee wages.

The Case: Mike Altieri v. Valencia H. Motors, Inc.,

The Court: Los Angeles County Superior Court

The Case No.: 24STCV27061

The Plaintiff: Mike Altieri v. Valencia H. Motors, Inc.,

The plaintiff, Mike Altieri, worked for the defendant from November 2020 through February 2024 as a nonexempt hourly employee entitled to legal protections under federal and state labor laws. The plaintiff filed a California class action complaint alleging Valencia H. Motors, Inc. violated the California Labor Code.

The Defendant: Mike Altieri v. Valencia H. Motors, Inc.,

The defendant, Valencia H. Motors, Inc., allegedly failed to give workers their required meal breaks and rest periods (as determined by labor law). By failing to adhere to labor law's meal break and rest period requirements, the company allegedly failed to provide their employees with full wages for the hours they worked.

The Allegations: Mike Altieri v. Valencia H. Motors, Inc.,

Altieri claims that Valencia H. Motors, Inc. engaged in multiple labor law violations:

• Minimum wage violations

• Overtime wage violations

• Meal break and rest period violations

• Wage statement violations

• Required expense reimbursement violations

• Sick wage violations

• Timely payment of wages violations

The Case: Mike Altieri v. Valencia H. Motors, Inc.,

In Mike Altieri v. Valencia H. Motors, Inc., the class seeks compensation for the losses caused by the defendant's standard policies and operating procedures allegedly failing to fully compensate workers for their work hours. Additionally, the plaintiff and the class members seek an injunction preventing the company from exhibiting similar conduct in the future. The plaintiff filed the class action in California's Los Angeles County Superior Court.

If you have questions about filing a California wage and hour class action lawsuit, please contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Knowledgeable employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in Riverside, San Francisco, Sacramento, San Diego, Los Angeles, and Chicago.