Prudent Security Solutions Inc. Faces Wage and Hour Class Action

In recent news, Prudent Security Solutions Inc. faces a wage and hour class action citing multiple labor law violations.

The Case: Brian Bradford and Lisa Bradford v. Prudent Security Solutions Inc.

The Court: Los Angeles County Superior Court of the State of California

The Case No.: 23STCV04656

The Plaintiff: Brian Bradford and Lisa Bradford v. Prudent Security Solutions Inc.

The plaintiffs in the case are Brian and Lisa Bradford. Prudent Security Solutions Inc. employed Brian Bradford from March 2022 to April 2022. Bradford was a non-exempt employee paid hourly plus non-discretionary bonuses and was eligible for federal and state labor law protections, including minimum wage, overtime wage, meal breaks, and rest periods.

The Defendant: Brian Bradford and Lisa Bradford v. Prudent Security Solutions Inc.

The defendant in the case, Prudent Security Solutions Inc., provides security services throughout California, including Los Angeles.

The Case: Brian Bradford and Lisa Bradford v. Prudent Security Solutions Inc.

According to the lawsuit, Prudent Security Solutions allegedly committed various labor code violations, including failing to pay minimum wages, failing to pay overtime wages, failing to provide required meal and rest periods, failing to reimburse employees for necessary expenses, failing to pay wages when due, failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements, failing to pay vacation wages when due, failing to make lawful deductions, failing to pay wages during employment promptly, and failing to pay sick pay.

California Labor Law: Minimum Wage

According to California law, employers must pay their employees no less than the applicable minimum wage rate for all hours worked during the designated pay period on an established payday. The relevant wage order defines "hours worked" as the time during "which an employee is subject to the control of an employer," including the time the employee is suffered or allowed to work, even if they are not required to work.

The Case: Brian Bradford and Lisa Bradford v. Prudent Security Solutions Inc.

According to the plaintiff, Prudent Security Solutions required its employees to perform work before and after their scheduled shifts and during "off-duty" meal breaks. The plaintiffs also allege Prudent Security Solutions failed to compensate employees for time employees spent under the employer's control "off-the-clock." As a result, Prudent Security Solutions allegedly failed to provide employees with the applicable minimum wage for all hours worked.

If you have questions about how to file a California wage and hour lawsuit, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced wage and hour attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Saputo Dairy Foods USA, LLC Faces a California Class Action Complaint

Saputo Dairy Foods USA, LLC faces a class action complaint alleging that they violated California Labor Law.

The Case: Juan Romero v. Saputo Dairy Foods USA, LLC

The Court: Merced County Superior Court of the State of California

The Case No.: 23CV-00403

The Plaintiff: Juan Romero v. Saputo Dairy Foods USA, LLC

The plaintiff in the case,  Juan Romero, filed a class action complaint alleging that Saputo Dairy Foods USA, LLC violated labor law. The alleged violations include:

• failure to pay minimum wage

• failure to pay overtime wages

• failure to provide legally required meal breaks and rest periods

• failure to provide workers with accurate itemized wage statements

• failure to reimburse employees for necessary business expenses

• failure to pay sick wages

The Defendant: Juan Romero v. Saputo Dairy Foods USA, LLC

The defendant in the case, Saputo Dairy Foods USA, LLC, produces, markets, and distributes various dairy products. According to the plaintiff, the company allegedly failed to reimburse their employees for required business expenses. According to California Labor Code § 2802, "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..." According to the plaintiff, Juan Romero, he and other eligible California Class Members were allegedly required to use their personal cell phones to complete their job duties.

The Case: Juan Romero v. Saputo Dairy Foods USA, LLC

In the case Juan Romero v. Saputo Dairy Foods USA, LLC, the defendant faces allegations of numerous labor law violations. The claims included in the complaint violate Labor Code sections §§ 201-204, 226, 226.7, 233, 510, 512, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 2802, and the applicable Wage Order(s). The alleged conduct could result in civil penalties.

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

DCH Torrance Imports Inc. Faces Class Action Alleging Labor Code Violations

In recent news, a lawsuit alleges that DCH Torrance Imports Inc. violated the labor code by failing to provide their employees with timely rest breaks and meal periods.

The Case: Aaron Castro v. DCH Torrance Imports Inc. ("DCH Toyota of Torrance")

The Court: Los Angeles County Superior Court of the State of California

The Case No.: 23STCV02400,

The Plaintiff: Aaron Castro v. DCH Torrance Imports Inc. (DCH Toyota of Torrance)

The plaintiff in the case, Aaron Castro, filed a class action complaint against the defendant, DCH Torrance Imports Inc (DCH Toyota of Torrance). Castro was employed by the defendant in the case since December 2012 as a non-exempt employee paid hourly plus non-discretionary bonuses. As a non-exempt employee, Castro is entitled to labor law protection, including minimum wages, overtime pay, rest periods, and meal breaks, as determined by federal and state labor laws. Allegedly the company failed to provide employees with timely, off-duty meal and rest periods and engaged in uniform practices and policies that failed to fully compensate employees for their time and, in doing so, violated California State Labor Law.

The Defendant: Aaron Castro v. DCH Torrance Imports Inc. (DCH Toyota of Torrance)

The defendant in the case, DCH Torrance Imports Inc. (Toyota of Torrance), is a California corporation that owns, operates, or manages auto dealerships throughout California, including the location in Los Angeles county where the plaintiff, Aaron Castro, worked. California law requires all employers to pay their employees on the designated payday for each pay period, to provide employees no less than the established minimum wage for hours worked, and to calculate hours worked as the time during which an employee is "subject to the control of an employer" including the time the employee is permitted to work, even if they are not required to work. Allegedly, DCH Toyota of Torrance required employees to perform off-the-clock work before and after their scheduled shifts and during their meal breaks and rest periods. The company also allegedly failed to compensate employees for the time spent under the employer's control when performing off-the-clock work. This alleged uniform practice at the company resulted in the claimed violations of minimum wage and overtime law.

The Allegations: Aaron Castro v. DCH Torrance Imports Inc. (DCH Toyota of Torrance)

According to court documents, the plaintiff alleges that the defendant, DCH Toyota of Torrance, allegedly violated numerous labor laws (California Labor Code Sections §§ 201, 202, 203, 204, 210, 226, 226.7, 246, 510, 512, 558, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, and 2802) when they engaged in the following business practices and activities:

Failing to pay minimum wages

Failing to pay overtime wages

Failing to provide required meal and rest periods

Failing to pay wages when due

Failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements

Failing to reimburse employees for required expenses

The Case: Aaron Castro v. DCH Torrance Imports Inc. (DCH Toyota of Torrance)

The plaintiffs and class members seek an injunction to prevent the company from engaging in future repeat labor law violations and relief for economic injuries incurred due to DCH Toyota of Torrance's allegedly illegal business practices and policies. The case, Aaron Castro v. DCH Torrance Imports Inc., is currently pending in the Los Angeles County Superior Court of the State of California.

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

California Class Action Lawsuit Alleges TriCom Networks, Inc. Failed to Provide Required Meal and Rest Breaks

In a recently filed California class action lawsuit, California employees allege TriCom Networks, Inc., their employer, violated the labor code.

The Case: Coleman Bud Mathews IV v. TriCom Networks, Inc.

The Court: San Diego County Superior Court of the State of California

The Case No.: 37-2023-00001267-CU-OE-CTL

The Plaintiff: Coleman Bud Mathews IV v. TriCom Networks, Inc.

The plaintiff in the case, Coleman Bud Mathews IV, started working for TriCom Networks, Inc. in December 2021. He was employed there as an hourly, non-exempt employee through May 2022. During his time with TriCom Networks, Inc., Mathews claims that the company’s policy and standard practices regarding the payment of minimum wage, the calculation and payment of overtime, and required meal breaks and rest periods violated employment law. Mathews filed a class action.

The Defendant: Coleman Bud Mathews IV v. TriCom Networks, Inc.

The defendant in the case, TriCom Networks, Inc., is a California that employed the plaintiff during the class period. According to the class action lawsuit, TriCom Networks allegedly violated various California Labor Codes.

The Allegations: Coleman Bud Mathews IV v. TriCom Networks, Inc.

The allegations included in the class action fall under California Labor Code Sections §§ s 201, 202, 203, 204, 210, 226, 226.7, 510, 512, 558, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, and 2802. The California employer allegedly failed to:

1. pay minimum wages

2. pay overtime wages

3. provide employees with required rest periods and meal breaks

4. reimburse employees for required business expenses

5. provide accurate itemized wage statements*

*According to California Labor Code Section 226, employers must provide workers with an accurate itemized wage statement (in writing) that includes the employee’s gross wages earned, total hours worked, piece rate, and the number of piece-rate units earned (if applicable), any deductions taken, net wages, the dates specifying the pay period, the employee’s name, the last four digits of the employee’s social security number or employee id number, the employer’s name and address, hourly rates of pay (any that are in effect and applicable to the current pay period) and the numbers of hours paid at each hourly rate for the employee.

The Case: Coleman Bud Mathews IV v. TriCom Networks, Inc.

The plaintiff claims that during the time spent employed by TriCom Networks, Inc., meal break violations, rest period violations, unreimbursed business expenses, wage statement violations, off-the-clock work resulting in minimum wage and overtime pay violations, unlawful rounding practices, timekeeping manipulation, etc. resulted in losses for the plaintiff and others in similar situations with the company. The class action seeks compensation for these losses.

If you have questions about how to file a California overtime lawsuit, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced wage and hour attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Did Veni-Express, Inc. Fail to Pay Employees All Wages Due?

In recent news, an employee claims that Veni-Express, Inc. failed to pay employees all the wages they were due for hours worked.

The Case: Yesenia Medina v. Veni-Express, Inc.

The Court: San Diego County Superior Court of the State of California

The Case No.: 37-2022-00047732-CU-OE-CTL

The Plaintiff: Yesenia Medina v. Veni-Express, Inc.

The plaintiff in the case, Yesenia Medina, is a mobile phlebotomist employed in California from January 2022 through June 2022 by Veni-Express, Inc. According to the complaint, the plaintiff did not receive minimum wage or legally required rest breaks. During her employment, the company allegedly put a piece rate pay system in place for conducting the visits assigned by the company (that the plaintiff describes as illegal). Under the piece rate system, Medina claims the company failed to pay minimum wage and also failed to pay for all hours worked, including time spent traveling to and from visits, time spent filling out charts and paperwork before and after completing the assigned visits, and time the company required Medina be on call.

Alleged Violations of Employment Law: Yesenia Medina v. Veni-Express, Inc.

• Unfair competition (violating Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §17200 et seq; 2)

• Failure to pay minimum wage (violating Cal. Lab. Code §§ 1194, 1197 & 1197.1; 3)

• Failure to pay overtime wages (violating Cal. Lab. Code §§ 510 et seq; 4)

• Failure to provide required meal periods and rest periods (violating Cal. Lab. Code §§ 226.7 & 512 and the applicable wage order)

• Failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements (violating Cal. Lab. Code § 226; 7)

• Failure to provide wages when due (violating Cal. Lab. Code §§ 201, 202 AND 203. 8)

• Violation of the Private Attorneys General Act

The Defendant: Yesenia Medina v. Veni-Express, Inc.

The defendant in the case, Veni-Express, Inc., offers mobile phlebotomy, specimen collection, onsite drug testing, and DNA collection services throughout California, including San Diego County, where the plaintiff, Medina, worked.

The Case: Yesenia Medina v. Veni-Express, Inc.

The case, Yesenia Medina v. Veni-Express, Inc., is brought on behalf of current and former California employees of Veni-Express who received payment for their work using the piece rate basis from November 28, 2018, to the time of the filing. The plaintiff alleges that some of the employees receiving piece rate payment were entitled to separate hourly compensation for the time they spent performing other, non-production related job duties as instructed by Veni-Express during their work shifts. Medina also claims the employees are entitled to one hour of compensation pay for their missed rest periods.

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

Is Failing to Reimburse Employees for Business Expenses a Labor Law Violation?

In recent news, Logical Innovations, Inc. faces allegations of Labor Law violations after an employee's lawsuit claims they failed to reimburse for required business expenses.

The Case: Atya Tarkington v. Logical Innovations, Inc, and Logical-R Joint Venture LLC

The Court: Los Angeles County Superior Court

The Case No.: 22STCV31929

The Plaintiff: Atya Tarkington v. Logical Innovations, Inc, and Logical-R Joint Venture LLC

The plaintiff in the case, Atya Tarkington, was employed in California by the defendant from January 2020 to March 2022 as a non-exempt employee entitled to the legally required meal and rest periods and minimum and overtime wages. Tarkington filed a class action lawsuit claiming that the company failed to provide employees with off-duty meal periods and rest breaks as required by employment law. In addition, the plaintiff claims the company failed to provide appropriate overtime pay for the missed meal breaks, which resulted in lost wages for Tarkington and other eligible class members.

The Defendant: Atya Tarkington v. Logical Innovations, Inc, and Logical-R Joint Venture LLC

The defendant in the case, Logical Innovations, Inc., and Logical-R Joint Venture LLC, were joint employers of Atya Tarkington, the plaintiff. The defendants provide business development services for the federal government and clients in the commercial sector. According to the plaintiff, the company failed to reimburse workers for necessary business expenses that enabled the employees to complete their job duties.

The Case: Atya Tarkington v. Logical Innovations, Inc, and Logical-R Joint Venture LLC

The case, Atya Tarkington v. Logical Innovations, Inc, and Logical-R Joint Venture LLC, allegedly failed to reimburse employees for business expenses required to complete their job duties. According to California Labor Code §2802, "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..." According to court documents, Tarkington and other class members were allegedly required to use their personal cellular phones, vehicles, and home offices to complete their job duties. The company did not fully compensate them for the business expenses.

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

Mosaic Sales Solutions Settles Expense Reimbursement Class Action Lawsuit for $148K

In recent news, Mosaic Sales Solutions agreed to settle a class action expense reimbursement lawsuit for $148K.

The Case: Coyle v. Mosaic Sales

The Court: Los Angeles County Superior Court, State of California

The Case No.: 19STCV30088

The Plaintiff: Coyle v. Mosaic Sales

The plaintiff in the case filed the class action on behalf of individuals who worked as brand ambassadors for Mosaic Sales Solutions in California between Aug. 27, 2015, and June 30, 2021. The class definition includes about 3,100 Mosaic workers. According to the California class action lawsuit, Mosaic Sales brand ambassadors were required to cover business expenses like cellphone costs, other communication device and service expenses, mileage expenses, and more. The company did not reimburse them for the business expenses. Mosaic Sales allegedly violated California labor law by failing to reimburse their brand ambassadors for business expenses.

The Defendant: Coyle v. Mosaic Sales

The defendant in the case, Mosaic Sales Solutions, is a marketing agency offering numerous services such as brand design, commerce support, business strategies, online marketing, and more. Mosaic’s brand ambassadors provide the company with information on various products at different retail locations. The data brand ambassadors gathered was used to optimize sales for the company.

Details of the Case: Coyle v. Mosaic Sales

Mosaic Sales allegedly violated California labor law by failing to reimburse brand ambassadors for business expenses. Under California state law, employers must reimburse employees for costs or losses incurred “in direct consequence” of their job duties. Mosaic Sales Solutions agreed to pay $148,000 to resolve the class action lawsuit claiming they violated employment law by failing to reimburse brand ambassadors for business expenses.

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