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.

Did Swissport Cargo Services, L.P. Fail to Provide their Workers With Full Wages?

A recent California wage and hour lawsuit questions whether Swissport Cargo Services paid their employees for all the hours they worked.

The Case: William Hayes, Jr. v. Swissport Cargo Services, L.P.

The Court: California's Los Angeles County Superior Court

The Case No.: 24CV05042

The Plaintiff: William Hayes, Jr. v. Swissport Cargo Services, L.P.

The plaintiff, William Hayes, Jr., worked for Swissport Cargo Service, L.P. from July 10, 2024, through August 30, 2024, as a nonexempt hourly employee entitled to the protections of federal and state labor laws.

The Defendant: William Hayes, Jr. v. Swissport Cargo Services, L.P.

The defendant, Swissport Cargo Services, L.P., allegedly required employees to work while clocked out on their legally mandated off-duty meal breaks, employed a uniform practice of rounding employee hours down (to benefit the employer), and required mandatory off-the-clock COVID-19 screenings before workers could clock in for work.

The Allegations: William Hayes, Jr. v. Swissport Cargo Services, L.P.

According to the plaintiff's allegations, Swissport Cargo Services, L.P allegedly violated numerous labor laws, including:

• failing to pay workers minimum wage (determined by labor law)

• failing to provide overtime wages for overtime hours

• failing to provide mandatory meal and rest periods

• failing to offer workers their itemized wage statements

• failing to reimburse workers for any required business expenses

• failing to pay employees their sick wages

According to the class action, the California employer violated various California Labor Codes. The alleged violations leave the company open to potential civil penalties.

Two of the Most Common Labor Law Violations in California:

The William Hayes, Jr. v. Swissport Cargo Services, L.P. case is a good example of two of the most common labor law violations seen in California: wage violations and wage statement violations.

Wage Violations: California employers are required to pay employees for all the time they work. "Time worked" refers to the time during which an employee is subject to the control of the employer. (This includes the time the employee is "permitted" to fulfill their job duties). Failing to pay employees for all their hours worked due to "rounding" practices for employee hours and payroll purposes often leads to minimum wage violations and overtime pay violations.

Wage Statement Violations: California employers are required to furnish each employee with an accurate itemized wage statement for each pay period. The wage statement must include rates of pay used during the pay period, total hours worked, and a designation of the pay period itself. A standard practice of rounding employee hours "down" often leads to inaccurate wage statements in violation of labor law.

The Case: William Hayes, Jr. v. Swissport Cargo Services, L.P.

In William Hayes, Jr. v. Swissport Cargo Services, L.P., 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 case is pending 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.

Evergreen and Pactiv Packaging Class Action Lawsuit: California Workers Due Wages

In a California class action lawsuit, Evergreen and Pactiv Packaging are facing allegations they didn’t pay their employees the complete wages they are owed.

The Case: Latosha Dehart vs. Evergreen and Pactiv Packaging

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

The Case No.: CV-24-005982

The Plaintiff: Latosha Dehart vs. Evergreen and Pactiv Packaging

The plaintiff, Latosha Dehart, filed a class action complaint against Evergreen and Pactiv Packaging for allegedly failing to provide employees with timely, off-duty meals and rest periods.

The Defendant: Latosha Dehart vs. Evergreen and Pactiv Packaging

The defendant, Evergreen and Pactiv Packaging, allegedly violated several labor laws, including multiple California Labor Code Sections (§§ 201, 202, 203, 204, 210, 226, 226.7, 510, 512, 558, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, and 2802). The business practices and behaviors that constituted labor law violations were:

• Not paying wages when due

• Failing to meet minimum wage requirements

• Failing to provide accurate overtime pay

• Not reimbursing employees for work expenses

• Failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements

• Failing to offer employees mandatory rest periods and meal breaks

What to Do When You Aren’t Paid All Your Wages?

If you aren’t paid your full wages due, take the following steps to ensure you receive fair compensation:

Document your hours: Keep accurate records of all your hours, including overtime, as this will serve as essential evidence.

Review your wage statements: Regularly check your pay stubs to ensure they accurately reflect the hours worked and the wages owed.

Raise the issue internally: Report any discrepancies to your human resources department to allow them to correct any errors.

Consider joining the class action: If the issue is systemic, joining the lawsuit can provide a collective avenue for seeking redress.

Talk to a lawyer: Consult an employment law attorney and ask about recovering unpaid wages.

These proactive steps can help safeguard your rights and ensure you are fully compensated according to labor laws.

The Case: Latosha Dehart vs. Evergreen and Pactiv Packaging

The lawsuit alleges Evergreen and Pactiv Packaging failed to pay their employees for all the time they worked, an alleged California Labor Code violation. The case is currently pending in the Stanislaus County Superior Court of the State of California.

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.

Mossy Automotive Accused of Failing to Pay Full Wages

Mossy Automotive is facing a wage and hour class action lawsuit alleging that the car dealer failed to pay its workers all their wages; the case spotlights potential systemic wage and hour issues.

The Case: David Bratt vs. Mossy Automotive

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

The Case No.: 24CU002277C

The Plaintiff: David Bratt vs. Mossy Automotive

The plaintiff, David Bratt, started working for Mossy Automotive in January 2023. Bratt worked for Mossy Automotive as a nonexempt hourly employee with non-discretionary bonuses. As such, he was entitled to minimum wage, overtime pay, meal breaks, and rest periods as outlined by labor law. He filed a class action complaint against the California employer, alleging they failed to compensate him for all his hours. According to the lawsuit, some nonexempt, exempt, piece-rate based, or commission-based employees from July 22, 2020, to the present may have been entitled to additional separate hourly compensation for the time they spent working on non-sales related job duties during their Mossy Automotive shifts.

The Defendant: David Bratt vs. Mossy Automotive

The defendant, Mossy Automotive, is a family-owned dealership providing automobiles, parts, and services for Nissan, Toyota, Ford, VW, Honda, Mitsubishi, and Infiniti vehicles in the San Diego area. According to the class action lawsuit, Mossy Automotive engaged in multiple wage and hour violations: failing to pay minimum wage and overtime wage, failing to provide meal breaks and rest periods, failing to provide reimbursements for business expenses, failing to provide wages on time, and failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements. These allegations constitute violations of numerous labor laws, including unfair competition in violation of California Labor Code Sections §§ 201, 202, 203, 204, 206.5, 226.7, 510, 512, 558, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198 & 2802

How to Respond If Your Employer Doesn't Pay You the Wages You Deserve:

California employees who believe they aren't receiving their full wages per labor laws can take action through these simple steps:

Look at Your Pay Stubs: Keep an eye on your pay stubs so you are aware of any discrepancies.

Know Your Employment Terms: If you have an employment contract, refresh your memory of the terms of your employment and make sure you understand the terms.

Track Your Hours: Keep a detailed record of your work hours, including overtime.

Report Any Issues to HR: Initially address your concerns about discrepancies between your records and the company's records with the HR department; an internal resolution is the quickest outcome.

Join the Class Action: If there is already a class action in progress, and your issue mirrors your colleagues, consider joining the class action.

Seek Legal Counsel: Talk to an employment lawyer about filing a wage and hour claim.

These steps can help you actively pursue the full compensation you are entitled to while contributing to broader efforts to address systemic pay issues in the workplace.

The Case: David Bratt vs. Mossy Automotive

The lawsuit alleges Mossy Automotive failed to provide workers with all the wages they were due; which is an alleged California Labor Cod violation. The case, David Bratt vs. Mossy Automotive, is currently pending in the San Diego County Superior Court of the State of California.

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.

Seeking Justice: Lawsuit Claims PAQ, Inc. Failed to Pay Full Wages

PAQ, Inc. is under legal scrutiny regarding wage compliance issues after Lorenzo Sibley filed a California employment law class action.

The Case: Lorenzo Sibley vs. PAQ, Inc.

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

The Case No.: STK-CV-UOE-2024-14148

The Plaintiff: Lorenzo Sibley vs. PAQ, Inc.

The plaintiff, Lorenzo Sibley, filed a class action complaint alleging that PAQ, Inc. violated the California Labor Code.

The Defendant: Lorenzo Sibley vs. PAQ, Inc.

The defendant, PAQ, Inc., allegedly failed to reimburse employees for required business expenses. Allegedly, this resulted in inaccurate and incomplete wages and wage statements. The allegations listed in the lawsuit include failing to pay minimum wage, failing to pay overtime wages, failing to pay wages when due, failing to reimburse employees for required business expenses, failing to provide workers with rest periods and meal breaks, and failing to provide workers with accurate itemized wage statements. These allegations would constitute violations of numerous California Labor Code Sections, including 201-203, 226, 226.7, 233, 246, 510, 512, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 2802, and the applicable Wage Order(s).

What Steps Should You Take if You Aren't Paid Your Full Wages?

If you suspect you haven't been paid your full wages, here are practical steps to help you reach a satisfactory resolution:

• Track Your Hours: Gather documentation of your work hours to compare it against the company's records.

• Check Your Pay Stubs: When you are issued a pay stub, always check it for accuracy against your records.

• Discuss Discrepancies with HR: Discuss discrepancies with your company's HR department.

• File a Wage Claim: If the issue is not resolved internally, talk to a local employment law attorney about filing a wage claim.

Taking these steps helps secure your wages and reinforces the importance of fair labor practices within the workplace.

The Case: Lorenzo Sibley vs. PAQ, Inc.

The case, Lorenzo Sibley vs. PAQ, Inc., is currently pending in the San Joaquin County Superior Court of the State of California.

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.