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.

Former Employee Claims HiHo Cheeseburger Failed to Provide Employees with Meal Breaks

In recent news, one of HiHo Cheeseburger’s former employers filed a lawsuit claiming the company did not provide meal breaks and rest periods required by labor law.

The Case: Cristian Duenas Achutegul vs. American Cheeseburger, LLC dba HiHo Cheeseburger

The Court: Los Angeles County Superior Court

The Case No.: 24STCV30392

The Plaintiff: Achutegul vs. HiHo Cheeseburger

The plaintiff in the case, Achutegul, is a former employee of HiHo Cheeseburger. The company employed Achutegul from November 2023 through February 2024. As a non-exempt, hourly employee, Achutegul was entitled to legally required meal breaks and rest periods, payment of minimum wage and overtime pay, etc. In November 2024, he sued, claiming the company violated multiple labor laws.

The Defendant: Achutegul vs. HiHo Cheeseburger

HiHo Cheeseburger, the defendant, owns and operates restaurants in California (including Los Angeles County). According to the complaint, the company engaged in several labor law violations, including:

• Failing to pay minimum wage

• Failing to pay overtime wages

• Failing to provide legally required meal breaks

• Failing to provide legally required rest periods

• Failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements

• Failing to pay wages when due

• Failing to reimburse employees for necessary business expenses

• Failing to provide gratuities

According to the plaintiff, HiHo Cheeseburger allegedly required workers to complete tasks before and after their scheduled shifts and during their off-duty meal breaks and rest periods. The lawsuit claims that the restaurant failed to compensate its employees for the time they spent compiling “off the clock” tasks even though they were “under their employer’s control.” As such, they failed to pay their employees the applicable “minimum wage” for all the hours they worked in a given pay period.

The Case: Achutegul vs. HiHo Cheeseburger

Achutegul vs. HiHo Cheeseburger is currently pending in the Los Angeles County Superior Court.

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

Lawrence Equipment Allegedly Violated Labor Law: Meal & Rest Break Violations

In recent news, an equipment rental company faces allegations of labor law violations stemming from missed meal breaks and rest periods.

The Case: Rudy Pedroza v. Lawrence Equipment Leasing, Inc., Lawrence Equipment, Inc. (Lawrence Equipment)

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

The Case No.: 24STCV09752

The Plaintiff: Rudy Pedroza v. Lawrence Equipment

The plaintiff in the case, Rudy Pedroza, filed a class action lawsuit, including allegations that rigorous work schedules prevented employees from taking their off-duty meal breaks and rest periods. Pedroza also claimed employees were not fully relieved of work duties for their meal periods.

The Defendant: Rudy Pedroza v. Lawrence Equipment

The defendant in the case, Lawrence Equipment, allegedly failed to offer workers the required meal breaks and rest periods, or more specifically, employees were periodically interrupted during their off-duty meal breaks with requests to complete tasks for Lawrence Equipment. According to the California lawsuit, the employer violated multiple California labor laws. Allegations listed in the lawsuit include:

• Failure to pay minimum wage

• Failure to pay overtime wages

• Failure to offer employees the required meal and rest periods

• Failure to reimburse their employees for required business expenses

• Failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements

• Failure to provide wages when due

When Should California Employers Provide Employees with Rest Breaks and Meal Periods?

California labor law mandates specific meal breaks and rest periods for non-exempt employees to make sure workers have enough time to rest and eat while at work or on the job. When employees work more than five hours daily, employers must offer them a 30-minute meal break. If an employee's total workday is six hours or less, they can waive their meal break if both the employer and employee agree. California employees are entitled to another 30-minute meal break on workdays that extend beyond 10 hours. (If the total hours worked in one day are no more than 12, the second meal break can be waived by mutual consent, but only if the employee did not waive their first meal break of the work day). Employers must also provide employees a ten-minute rest period for every four hours worked (or major fraction, defined as anything more than two hours). Rest periods are paid time taken in the middle of work. If an employer does not provide required rest periods, the employee must be compensated with one additional hour of pay at their regular rate for each workday the rest period is not offered.

The Case: Rudy Pedroza v. Lawrence Equipment

Lawrence Equipment employees were allegedly required to complete work at Lawrence Equipment for more than five hours during a shift without being offered an off-duty meal break. Additionally, the suit alleges Lawrence Equipment didn't offer their employees a second off-duty meal period as required on workdays when employees worked 10 hours. According to the plaintiff, Lawrence Equipment kept employees on call and on duty during what was supposed to be their "off duty" meal periods. Pedroza also claimed that the defendant did not provide additional compensation to employees for the missed meal breaks as required. The class action lawsuit, Rudy Pedroza v. Lawrence Equipment, is pending in California's LA County Superior Court.

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

Does GNC Provide Employees with Labor Law Complaint Meal Breaks and Rest Periods?

A lawsuit filed recently in California notes allegations that GNC failed to provide employees with meal periods and rest breaks compliant with labor laws.

The Case: Rahmeez Jackson v. GNC Holdings LLC

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

The Case No.: 24CV000627

The Plaintiff: Rahmeez Jackson v. GNC Holdings LLC

The plaintiff in the case, Rahmeez Jackson, was a GNC employee from July 2022 through April 2023. Jackson claims that while he worked there, GNC didn’t provide employees with timely, off-duty meal breaks and rest periods and that failing to do so constitutes a labor law violation. Jackson filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of himself and other GNC employees in a similar situation.

The Defendant: Rahmeez Jackson v. GNC Holdings LLC

The defendant in the case, GNC Holdings LLC, owns and operates a chain of health food stores. The allegations in the class action lawsuit include:

• failing to pay minimum wage

• failing to pay overtime wages

• failing to provide meal breaks and rest periods

• failing to reimburse workers for job-related necessary expenses

• failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements

• failing to pay wages when they’re due

The allegations included in the California wage and hour class action would violate multiple California Labor Codes (§§ 201, 202, 203, 204, 210, 226, 226.7, 510, 512, 558, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, and 2802).

Do All California Employees Get Rest Breaks and Meal Periods?

California employers must provide their non-exempt employees with a minimum 30-minute meal break if they work more than five hours a day and a second meal break if they work over ten hours. Additionally, employees are entitled to 10-minute rest periods for every four hours they work. Failure to provide these breaks allows employees to receive one additional hour of pay at their regular rate for each workday that the meal or rest period is not provided.

The Case: Rahmeez Jackson v. GNC Holdings LLC

The wage and hour class action lawsuit, Rahmeez Jackson v. GNC Holdings LLC, is currently pending in the Sacramento County Superior Court of the State of California.

If you have questions about how to respond to an employer’s labor code violations, please contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced California employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Cogswell College Faces Labor Law Violation Allegations

Cogswell College/University of Silicon Valley faces allegations of labor law violations after plaintiffs claimed they did not provide the legally required meal and rest periods.

The Case: Rosangela Torres v. Cogswell College, LLC

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

The Case No.: 22STCV00409

The Plaintiff: Rosangela Torres v. Cogswell College, LLC

The plaintiff in the case, Rosangela Torres, recently filed a lawsuit alleging that Cogswell College (also known as the University of Silicon Valley) violated the California Labor Code when they allegedly failed to pay employees for all their time worked. According to the complaint, the defendant allegedly violated California Labor Code Sections §§ 201, 202, 203, 204, 226, 226.7, 246, 510, 512, 558, 1174(d), 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, 2800, 2802 and 2804. In the lawsuit, the plaintiff described a workplace setting in which employees engaged in rigorous work schedules that prevented them from taking rest breaks off duty. Torres also alleged that employees were not fully relieved of their work duties during their rest periods.

The Defendant: Rosangela Torres v. Cogswell College, LLC

Cogswell College, LLC, the defendant in the case, allegedly violated the California Labor Code by failing to provide employees with timely, off-duty meals and rest periods (as required by law). According to the plaintiff, Torres, Cogswell College engaged in numerous behaviors that violate labor law, including:

• Failing to pay minimum wages

• Failing to pay overtime wages

• Failing to provide meal and rest periods

• Failing to reimburse workers for required business expenses

• Failing to provide wages when due

• Failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements

The Case: Rosangela Torres v. Cogswell College, LLC

According to details provided in the case, the labor law violations arose from issues with understaffing and overtasking the existing workforce. As a result, the company allegedly sometimes required employees to work through their 4-hour, 8-hour, and even 10+ hour work shifts without their 1st, 2nd, or 3rd rest break. Torres also claims that the college did not provide employees who were not provided with their legally mandated rest breaks with the one-hour wage payment instead of a break. The case, Rosangela Torres v. Cogswell College, LLC, is currently pending in the Los Angeles County Superior Court of the State of California.

If you have questions about filing an employment law lawsuit, please contact 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.

Rady Children's Hospital-San Diego Allegedly Failed to Provide Employees with Breaks

Earlier this year, a lawsuit was filed claiming Rady Children’s Hospital-San Diego violated labor law when they failed to provide their employees with meal breaks required by labor law.

The Case: Stephanie Jones v. Rady Children’s Hospital-San Diego

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

The Case No.: 37-2023-00027035-CU-OE-CTL

The Plaintiff: Stephanie Jones v. Rady Children’s Hospital-San Diego

The plaintiff in the case, Stephanie Jones, was employed by Rady Children’s Hospital-San Diego from July 2020 through November 2022. Jones was entitled to the regular rest breaks and meal periods provided under labor law as a non-exempt hourly employee. Jones filed a class action complaint alleging that during her time with the facility, she was not provided with meal breaks, which violated labor law.

The Defendant: Stephanie Jones v. Rady Children’s Hospital-San Diego

The defendant in the case, Rady Children’s Hospital-San Diego, is the owner/operator of a hospital in California. According to the plaintiff, the hospital engaged in standard business practices that required her and other employees to work “off the clock,” did not provide them with legally required off-duty meal breaks, and utilized a “rounding down” system to track employee hours that resulted in workers not being paid for all hours worked.

The Case: Stephanie Jones v. Rady Children’s Hospital-San Diego

The case, Stephanie Jones v. Rady Children’s Hospital-San Diego, focuses on multiple alleged labor law violations, including failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide required meal breaks and rest periods, failure to provide employees with accurate itemized wage statements, failure to reimburse employees for required expenses, failure to pay sick wages, and failure to pay all wages when due.

If you have questions about how to file a California meal break and rest period 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.