Evergreen Environmental Services Class Action: California Employer Allegedly Failed to Pay All Wages

Antonio Melgarejo recently filed a class action lawsuit alleging that Evergreen Environmental Services violated labor code. According to the California class action, the California employer failed to provide employees with required off duty meal breaks and rest periods, which resulted in additional alleged violations.

The Case: Antonio Melgarejo v. Evergreen Environmental Services

The Court: Los Angeles Superior Court

The Case No.: 24STCV34126

Why Did Melgarejo File the California Class Action?

The plaintiff, Antonio Melgarejo, filed the class action complaint on behalf of himself and other workers in similar positions at the company. Melgarejo claims that Evergreen failed to provide their employees with timely, off-duty meal breaks and rest periods; which are both required by labor law.

The Defendant: Antonio Melgarejo v. Evergreen Environmental Services

The defendant, Evergreen Environmental Services, allegedly required their workers to complete job tasks before and after their scheduled shift. Additionally, workers were required to fulfill job duties during their off-duty meal breaks and rest periods. According to the plaintiff, Evergreen Environmental Services did not compensate the employees for missed meal breaks and rest periods or for mandatory "off the clock" work. As a result, the California employer faces allegations of numerous labor law violations.

What Happens When California Employers Don't Comply with Labor Laws?

When California employers fail to comply with labor laws, they can face legal consequences. In this class action, the plaintiff included numerous labor law violation allegations, including those pertaining to minimum wage, overtime wages, timely payment of wages, meal breaks/rest periods, accurate itemized wages statements, and reimbursement of required business expenses. The plaintiff claims that the California employer's actions potentially violated multiple California Labor Codes.

The Case: Antonio Melgarejo v. Evergreen Environmental Services

The plaintiff filed the California class action, Antonio Melgarejo v. Evergreen Environmental Services, in California's Los Angeles County Superior Court.

Do you have questions about filing a California class 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.

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.

Did Global Paratransit Fail to Provide Compensation for Employee Hours?

Global Paratransit faces a California class action alleging they violated labor law with standard practices that failed to fully compensate their workers.

The Case: Alejandro Galindro v. Global Paratransit, Inc.

The Court: Los Angeles County Superior Court

The Case No.: 24STCV31314

The Plaintiff: Alejandro Galindro v. Global Paratransit, Inc.

The plaintiff, Alejandro Galindro, worked for Global Paratransit from December 21, 2023, through June 28, 2024, as a nonexempt hourly employee. As a nonexempt hourly employee, Galindro was entitled to the protections of federal and state labor laws. Galindro filed a class action on behalf of himself and other employees in similar situations, alleging the company engaged in numerous labor law violations.

The Defendant: Alejandro Galindro v. Global Paratransit, Inc.

The defendant, Global Paratransit, Inc., provides transportation services in California. According to Galindo, the company failed to accurately record all his hours, which allegedly resulted in inaccurate wages and wage statements. Alleging that the company's violation was due to standard practices, Galindro filed a class action so other employees in similar situations could also seek compensation for their losses.

The Allegations: Alejandro Galindro v. Global Paratransit, Inc.

Galindro claims that Global Paratransit regularly required employees to perform duties off the clock without appropriate compensation for the hours, even though they qualified as hours worked since the time was spent "under the control of the employer." Additionally, for those hours worked off the clock that were not eligible for overtime rates, it is alleged that the company didn't provide the required minimum wage, which violates California Labor Code provisions.

The Case: Alejandro Galindro v. Global Paratransit, Inc.

In Alejandro Galindro v. Global Paratransit, Inc., the class seeks compensation for the losses caused by the defendant's policies and practices allegedly failing to compensate employees lawfully. Additionally, they 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.