Pacific Mountain Logistics Wage-and-Hour Lawsuit Consolidated in Federal Court

A California wage-and-hour lawsuit involving Pacific Mountain Logistics, LLC will continue in federal court after a judge denied a request to remand the case to state court. The case, filed by former employee Araceli L. Hernandez, involves allegations tied to wage statements, overtime, meal and rest periods, and other California Labor Code claims.

Case: Araceli L. Hernandez v. Pacific Mountain Logistics, LLC et al.

Court: U.S. District Court for the Central District of California

Federal Case No.: 5:2025cv03054

Original State Court: San Bernardino County Superior Court

The Plaintiff: Hernandez v. Pacific Mountain Logistics, LLC et al.

Araceli L. Hernandez filed the lawsuit against Pacific Mountain Logistics, LLC, which the court identified as her former employer. According to the court’s order, Hernandez asserted multiple California wage-and-hour claims connected to her employment with Pacific Mountain Logistics.

The claims referenced in the federal court record include allegations involving unpaid wages, wage statement compliance, overtime, meal and rest periods, minimum wage obligations, and unfair business practices under California law.

Court records also show that the litigation was later consolidated with a related Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) action involving substantially similar alleged facts and claims.

The Defendant: Hernandez v. Pacific Mountain Logistics, LLC et al.

Pacific Mountain Logistics, LLC is identified in the court order as Hernandez’s former employer. The lawsuit alleges the company failed to comply with several provisions of the California Labor Code governing employee compensation and workplace practices.

The claims cited in the federal order include alleged violations of California Labor Code sections involving:

● Final wage payments

● Wage statements

● Meal and rest periods

● Overtime compensation

● Minimum wage requirements

The lawsuit also includes a claim brought under California Business and Professions Code § 17200, which addresses unlawful or unfair business practices.

A History of the Case: Hernandez v. Pacific Mountain Logistics, LLC et al.

The case started in San Bernardino County Superior Court on February 14, 2025. It was later removed to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on November 14, 2025.

Court records further show that the litigation was consolidated with a related PAGA action on 22 October 2025. PAGA lawsuits allow employees to pursue certain California Labor Code penalties on behalf of the state and other allegedly affected workers.

After removal, Hernandez sought to return the case to state court through a motion to remand. On February 18, 2026, the federal court denied that request, allowing the matter to remain in federal court while the underlying wage-and-hour claims continue through litigation.

The Main Question Being Considered: Hernandez v. Pacific Mountain Logistics, LLC et al.

The underlying dispute focuses on whether Pacific Mountain Logistics complied with California wage and hour laws governing employee pay and workplace protections.

The litigation involves questions concerning overtime compensation, wage statement accuracy, meal and rest break compliance, minimum wage obligations, and final wage payments. The consolidated PAGA component may also affect the scope of potential penalties and representative claims involved in the case.

The federal court’s February 18, 2026 order did not determine whether the alleged labor violations occurred. Instead, the ruling addressed whether the case would proceed in federal court or be returned to state court in California.

Why This Case Matters: Hernandez v. Pacific Mountain Logistics, LLC et al.

California wage-and-hour litigation frequently involves disputes over overtime calculations, break compliance, wage statement accuracy, and final pay obligations. Cases involving PAGA claims have become especially important because they can significantly expand employers' potential exposure and increase the complexity of employment litigation.

The procedural history in this case also highlights how wage-and-hour disputes filed in California state court may ultimately proceed in federal court after removal challenges are resolved.

For California employers, the case serves as another reminder that payroll practices, break policies, and wage documentation procedures continue to be scrutinized in both state and federal litigation.

FAQ: Hernandez v. Pacific Mountain Logistics, LLC et al.

Q: What is the Pacific Mountain Logistics lawsuit about?

A: The lawsuit involves California wage-and-hour claims related to overtime, meal and rest periods, wage statements, minimum wage obligations, and final wage payments.

Q: Was the case originally filed in state court?

A: Yes. The case was first filed in San Bernardino County Superior Court before being removed to federal court.

Q: What happened in federal court?

A: The plaintiff filed a motion seeking remand back to state court, but the federal court denied that request on February 18, 2026.

Q: What is a PAGA claim?

A: A PAGA claim allows employees to pursue certain California Labor Code penalties on behalf of the state and other allegedly affected workers.

Q: Did the court rule on whether labor violations occurred?

A: No. The February 18, 2026 ruling addressed jurisdictional and remand issues, not the merits of the wage-and-hour allegations.

If you have questions about California wage-and-hour law, PAGA litigation, overtime disputes, or meal and rest break compliance, contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to help at offices in Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Riverside, and Chicago.

Does Settling Individual Labor Claims End a Worker’s PAGA Standing?

A California Supreme Court decision clarified that an employee who settles personal Labor Code claims does not automatically lose the right to continue pursuing representative civil penalties under PAGA on the state’s behalf.

Case: Kim v. Reins International California, Inc. (Cal. 2020)

Court: Los Angeles County Superior Court / Supreme Court of California

Case/Docket No.: BC539194 / S246911

Where the Case Began: Kim v. Reins International California

The case began when Justin Kim sued Reins International California, Inc., which operates restaurants in California and had employed him as a “training manager,” a position the company classified as exempt from overtime laws. Kim brought a putative class action alleging that he and other training managers had been misclassified. The operative complaint included claims for unpaid wages and overtime, meal and rest break violations, inaccurate wage statements, waiting time penalties, unfair competition, and civil penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, or PAGA.

The case took an important procedural turn due to an arbitration agreement Kim had signed upon hire. Reins moved to compel arbitration of Kim’s individual claims for his own damages, sought dismissal of the class claims, and asked the court to stay the PAGA claim. The court dismissed the class claims, ordered arbitration of the individual claims, and stayed the PAGA claim. Later, Reins made a statutory offer to settle Kim’s individual claims for $20,000 plus attorney’s fees and costs, and Kim accepted. He then dismissed his individual claims, leaving only the PAGA claim.

The Legal Problem That Caused the Case to Proceed to the California Supreme Court:

The legal question was whether Kim still had standing to pursue the representative PAGA claim after he settled and dismissed his Labor Code claims. Reins argued that once Kim’s individual claims were resolved, he was no longer an “aggrieved employee” and therefore could not continue acting as the state’s representative in the PAGA action. The trial court agreed, granted summary adjudication in Reins's favor, and entered judgment in Reins's favor. The Court of Appeal affirmed that result.

PAGA Actions are Different from Ordinary Lawsuits:

That question mattered because PAGA actions differ from ordinary employee-damages suits. As the California Supreme Court explained, a PAGA plaintiff acts “as the proxy or agent of the state’s labor law enforcement agencies,” and a PAGA claim is fundamentally a dispute between the employer and the state. The Court granted review to resolve this issue of first impression: whether settling individual Labor Code claims destroys standing to continue pursuing PAGA penalties.

The Supreme Court’s Decision:

The California Supreme Court held that settling individual claims does not deprive an aggrieved employee of standing to pursue PAGA remedies. The Court focused on the text of Labor Code section 2699(c), which defines an “aggrieved employee” as a person who was employed by the alleged violator and against whom one or more of the alleged violations was committed. The Court found those two statutory requirements straightforward and held that Kim satisfied both. He had been employed by Reins, and he alleged that Labor Code violations had been committed against him. That was enough for standing.

Must a Worker Maintain an Unredressed Individual Damages Claim to Keep PAGA Standing?

The Court rejected the idea that a worker must maintain an unredressed individual damages claim to maintain PAGA standing. It reasoned that PAGA standing turns on the plaintiff’s status, and the occurrence of at least one alleged Labor Code violation against that plaintiff, not on whether the employee’s own monetary claims remain pending. The opinion also stressed that a PAGA action is legally and conceptually distinct from an employee’s personal suit for damages or statutory penalties, because PAGA is designed primarily to benefit the public and the state is the real party in interest.

That holding set an important precedent in California wage-and-hour law. After Kim, an employee who settles and dismisses individual Labor Code claims does not automatically lose standing to continue litigating a representative PAGA claim.

Why Kim v. Reins Matters:

This case matters because it preserved PAGA as a meaningful enforcement tool even when an employee’s individual claims have already been resolved. Without this ruling, employers could potentially narrow or eliminate representative PAGA actions simply by settling the named employee’s own claims and then arguing that no standing remained. The California Supreme Court rejected that approach and reinforced the distinct public-enforcement character of PAGA litigation.

Clarifying the Plaintiff’s Standing in a PAGA Claim:

It also matters because the decision clarified that PAGA standing is narrower in one sense and broader in another. It is narrower because only an “aggrieved employee” can sue. But it is broader because once a worker meets that definition, the worker’s ability to seek representative penalties does not depend on continuing to pursue individual damages claims. That gives workers and courts a cleaner rule for standing in PAGA cases.

For present-day litigants, Kim remains a major standing and enforcement case. It is especially important in wage-and-hour litigation involving arbitration, settlement strategy, and representative penalties, because it confirms that resolving individual claims does not necessarily end the case.

FAQ About the Kim PAGA Standing Case

Q: What was the main issue in Kim v. Reins International California, Inc.?

A: The main issue was whether an employee loses standing to pursue a representative PAGA claim after settling and dismissing individual Labor Code claims.

Q: What kind of workplace violations did Kim originally allege?

A: Kim alleged that Reins misclassified training managers as exempt and, as a result, violated laws concerning wages and overtime, meal and rest breaks, wage statements, waiting time penalties, unfair competition, and PAGA civil penalties.

Q: What did the lower courts decide before the case reached the Supreme Court?

A: The lower courts concluded that once Kim settled and dismissed his individual claims, he was no longer an “aggrieved employee” and therefore lacked standing to continue the PAGA claim.

Q: What did the California Supreme Court say about PAGA standing?

A: The Court held that PAGA standing depends on two things only: whether the plaintiff was employed by the alleged violator and whether one or more alleged Labor Code violations were committed against that plaintiff. Settling individual claims does not remove that standing.

Q: Why didn’t the settlement end Kim’s PAGA case?

A: Because the Court explained that a PAGA action is legally distinct from an employee’s personal damages claim. The state is the real party in interest, and PAGA standing does not disappear just because the employee’s own claims have been resolved.

Q: Is a PAGA claim the same as a personal wage claim?

A: No. The Court emphasized that a PAGA claim is conceptually different from an employee’s own suit for damages or statutory penalties. A PAGA plaintiff acts as the proxy or agent of the state’s labor law enforcement agencies.

Q: Why is Kim still important in California employment litigation?

A: It remains important because it is a leading case on PAGA standing and makes clear that settling individual Labor Code claims does not automatically extinguish a representative PAGA action.

Q: What practical lesson does Kim offer in wage-and-hour cases?

A: The case shows that settlement of individual claims may resolve personal relief, but it does not necessarily eliminate exposure to representative civil penalties under PAGA. That is an inference drawn directly from the Court’s holding and reasoning.

California wage-and-hour cases often involve more than an employee’s individual recovery. In some situations, the law allows workers to pursue civil penalties on the state’s behalf to enforce Labor Code protections more broadly. If you believe your employer violated California wage-and-hour laws and you have questions about PAGA standing, representative penalties, or how a settlement may affect your rights, Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP can assess whether your claims may still be actionable under California employment law.

Did Evergreen Environmental Services Fail to Pay Workers All Wages Due Under California Law?

A California wage and hour lawsuit filed by Antonio Melgarejo alleges Evergreen Environmental Services and related entities violated multiple California Labor Code provisions governing pay, breaks, and expense reimbursement.

Case: Antonio Melgarejo v. Evergreen Environmental Services

Court: Los Angeles County Superior Court

Case No. 24STCV34126

Who Is the Plaintiff in the Case: Melgarejo v. Evergreen Environmental Services?

Antonio Melgarejo is the named plaintiff who filed the case on behalf of himself and other similarly situated current and former non-exempt employees. The complaint says Melgarejo worked for the defendants in California from June 2023 through April 2024. It also alleges Melgarejo was paid on an hourly basis and was legally entitled to meal periods, rest periods, minimum wages, and overtime pay for all hours worked. In addition to pursuing individual claims, Melgarejo seeks to represent a broader California class of non-exempt workers employed during the proposed class period.

Who Is the Defendant in the Case: Evergreen Environmental Services?

Evergreen Environmental Services LLC, the defendant, is a Texas limited liability company that conducted substantial and regular business in California. The complaint also names HPC Industrial Services LLC and Phillips 66 Company, claiming all three entities acted as joint employers because each allegedly exercised control over hours, wages, or working conditions. The pleading further states that the defendants operated a hazardous waste disposal business in California, including in Los Angeles County, where the plaintiff worked.

The Plaintiff’s Allegations: Antonio Melgarejo v. Evergreen Environmental Services

The complaint alleges the defendants failed to pay for all hours worked, including work allegedly performed before shifts, after shifts, and during what should have been off-duty meal breaks. It also claims workers were denied legally compliant meal and rest periods, were not always paid overtime and premium pay at the correct regular rate, were not fully reimbursed for business expenses such as personal cell phone use and uniform upkeep, and received inaccurate itemized wage statements.

What Is “Off-the-Clock” Work? Work an employee performs without having that time properly recorded and paid. In California employment law cases, that can include time spent working during meal breaks or doing job tasks before or after a scheduled shift.

What Is a Non-Exempt Employee? A worker who is generally entitled to protections under California wage and hour law, including minimum wage, overtime pay, and meal and rest break rules. The complaint alleges the plaintiff and proposed class members were classified as non-exempt employees.

What Is the Main Question in the Case?

The core issue is whether Evergreen Environmental Services and the other named entities failed to comply with California wage and hour laws for non-exempt employees. The complaint frames that question around several connected practices: whether workers were required to perform unpaid work, whether legally compliant meal and rest periods were actually provided, and whether overtime and premium pay were calculated correctly. Another major question is whether the defendants’ records, pay practices, and wage statements accurately reflected the time employees worked and the wages they earned. In practical terms, the case asks whether the employers’ policies shifted labor costs onto workers in a way California law does not allow.

FAQ: Antonio Melgarejo v. Evergreen Environmental Services

Q: What Does This California Employment Lawsuit Claim?

A: The lawsuit claims non-exempt employees were not paid all wages due under California law. The complaint includes allegations involving unpaid off-the-clock work, missed meal and rest breaks, overtime underpayment, inaccurate wage statements, late wage payments, and unreimbursed business expenses.

Q: What Is the Case Name and Number?

A: The case is Melgarejo v. Evergreen Environmental Services, Inc., et al., Case No. 24STCV34126, filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court.

Q: What Is Joint Employer Liability and Why Does It Matter Here?

A: Joint employer liability means more than one company can be held legally responsible for wage and hour violations if all exercised sufficient control over the terms and conditions of employment. In this case, the lawsuit names Evergreen Environmental Services LLC, HPC Industrial Services LLC, and Phillips 66 Company as joint employers, alleging all were responsible for the pay practices and workplace policies at issue.

Q: What Is “Off-the-Clock Work” in a California Wage and Hour Case?

A: Off-the-clock work is job-related work that allegedly was performed without proper pay. In this case, the complaint alleges that employees were required to work before and after scheduled shifts and during meal periods without being paid for that time.

​Q: Why Do Meal and Rest Break Claims Matter in California Employment Law?

A: California law requires employers to provide compliant meal and rest periods to non-exempt employees, and missed breaks can trigger premium pay obligations. This case alleges that workers were not fully relieved of duty and were sometimes expected to remain available via communication device during breaks, which directly goes to whether the breaks were legally valid.

Q: What Makes This Case Relevant to a California Employment Law Audience?

A: This lawsuit touches several of the wage and hour issues that commonly drive California employment litigation: unpaid wages, overtime violations, meal and rest break violations, wage statement errors, final pay problems, and business expense reimbursement. For employees, the case is a reminder that payroll compliance is about more than just an hourly rate; it also depends on whether every hour worked and every premium owed was properly tracked and paid.

If you have questions about unpaid wages, missed meal or rest breaks, overtime violations, unreimbursed business expenses, or other workplace pay practices that may violate California law, the employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP can help. Contact one of our offices in Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Riverside, or Chicago today to learn how to hold your employer accountable.

Employee Alleges Hi Pro Engaged in Labor Law Violations

Another California employer faces allegations that it failed to provide their employees with legally mandated rest breaks and meal periods. Doing so inevitably leads to additional labor law violations connected to timely pay, pay rates, and overtime calculations.

Case: Lisa Munoz v. Hi Pro, Inc.

Court: San Bernardino County Superior Court of the State of California

Case No.: CIVSB2536842

Get to Know the Plaintiff: Lisa Munoz v. Hi Pro, Inc.

The plaintiff, Lisa Munoz, filed a class action complaint against Hi Pro, Inc. on December 17, 2025, alleging that the defendant systematically violated labor laws by failing to provide proper meal and rest breaks, manipulating timekeeping records, requiring unpaid off-the-clock work, failing to properly calculate overtime wages and making unauthorized deductions from employee compensation.

Who is the Defendant in the Case?

The defendant in the case, Hi Pro, Inc., is a family-owned and operated trucking company operating out of Yucca Valley.

The Plaintiffs Allege the Defendants Violated Multiple Labor Laws

According to the complaint, the plaintiffs allege the company violated several labor laws when it failed to:

1. Pay minimum wages

2. Pay overtime wages

3. Provide required meal breaks and rest periods.

4. Provide accurate itemized wage statements.

5. Pay wages when due

6. Reimburse workers for necessary work expenses.

The alleged violations would constitute violations of California Labor Code Sections §§ 201, 202, 203, 204, 210, 226.7, 510, 512, 558, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, 1198.5, and 2802. As of January 2026, the case is currently pending in the San Bernardino County Superior Court of the State of California.

The Main Question in the Case: Lisa Munoz v. Hi Pro, Inc.

The main question in this case is whether Hi Pro, Inc. maintained policies or practices that denied employees legally compliant meal breaks and rest periods. The court will ask:

• Were employees fully relieved of work duties for off-duty breaks?

• Were employees kept on call during off-duty breaks?

• Were employees interrupted during breaks to complete work duties?

• How long did Hi Pro have their employees work before providing them with a break?

• When employees did not receive appropriate rest breaks and meal periods, did the missed breaks result in additional employment law violations (such as minimum wage/overtime pay violations, inaccurate wage statements, late wage payment, unreimbursed business expenses, etc.?

FAQ: Lisa Munoz v. Hi Pro, Inc.

Q: What makes a meal period “off-duty” and legally compliant under California law?

A: In California, a meal period is “off duty” only if the employee is completely relieved of all work duties, they are uninterrupted while on their break is uninterrupted, they are free to leave the premises, and they are free of employer control. Additionally, the meal period must be provided before the end of the fifth hour of the employee’s shift.

Q: If an employee is interrupted during a meal break to handle work tasks, does that meal period still count as compliant?

A: If an employee’s break is interrupted so they can complete a job task or work duty, it is generally considered non-compliant since regulations require a 30-minute, uninterrupted, “off-duty” period. If the break is interrupted, it becomes an “on-duty” paid meal period, which is legal only if the nature of the work being performed prevents the employee from being relieved of their job duties and a written agreement exists.

​Q: Are California employers aware that providing rest breaks and meal periods is required by law?

A: Yes, all California employers should be aware that they must comply with labor law’s requirements for rest breaks and meal periods.

Q: When is a second meal period required, and what are the rules for shifts of ten (10) hours or more?

A: A second 30-minute unpaid meal period is generally needed if an employee works a shift longer than 10 hours in one workday.

Q: Is there a penalty when California employers don’t provide meal periods or rest breaks?

A: Yes, for a missed break, California employers should provide the employee with premium pay.

Q: How can meal/rest break violations connect to other claims like unpaid overtime, inaccurate wage statements, final pay violations, or expense reimbursement?

A: Meal and rest break violations often act as a catalyst for other wage and hour claims because California law considers the "premium pay" (one extra hour of pay) owed for missed breaks to be a form of wages. When these premiums are not paid, they trigger a domino effect, connecting directly to unpaid overtime, inaccurate pay stubs, and final pay violations.

If you believe your California employer violated labor law by failing to provide legally mandated meal breaks or rest periods, the employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP can help. Contact one of our offices in Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Riverside, or Chicago today to learn how to hold your employer accountable.

Headway Faces a Class Action Alleging Overtime Pay Violations

Headway, a platform that matches patients with high-quality mental healthcare professionals to meet their needs, is accused of violating labor laws in a California class-action lawsuit.

Case: Tessa Brower-Walsh v. Therapy Match, Inc. dba Headway

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

Case No.: 25CU053855C

Get to Know the Plaintiff: Tessa Brower-Walsh v. Therapy Match, Inc. dba Headway.

The plaintiff in the case, Tessa Brower-Walsh, filed a class action complaint alleging that the defendant failed to pay its employees for all hours worked accurately. Headway employed the plaintiff from August 2024 to May 2025.

Who is the Defendant in the Case?

The defendant in the case is Therapymatch, Inc.; however, hereinafter we’ll refer to them as Headway. Headway is a Delaware-based company doing significant business in California, including San Diego County. The company owns and operates a platform that connects patients with mental health care professionals.

The Plaintiffs Allege the Defendants Violated Multiple Labor Laws

As is often the case with California employment law claims, the plaintiffs allege that their employer violated multiple labor laws. The following labor law violation allegations were included in the complaint:

• Failure to pay minimum wage

• Failure to pay accurate overtime wages

• Failure to provide employees with required meal breaks and rest periods

• Failure to provide employees with accurate itemized wage statements

• Failure to pay wages promptly

• Failure to reimburse workers for required business expenses

The Main Question of the Case: Tessa Brower-Walsh v. Therapy Match, Inc., dba Headway

In Tessa Brower-Walsh v. Therapy Match, Inc., dba Headway, the main legal question was whether or not Headway’s wage statements complied with labor law. According to the plaintiff, Headway failed to provide all the required information on their wage statements (violating California Labor Code Section 226). Additionally, the court needs to consider the company’s history of wage payments, overtime calculations, and compensation practices to determine whether it violated labor laws governing minimum wage rates, overtime pay, and exempt classification.

FAQ: Tessa Brower-Walsh v. Therapy Match, Inc. dba Headway

Q: Has the Court decided on the Headway Overtime Class Action?

A: As of October 2025, the case, Tessa Brower-Walsh v. Therapy Match, Inc. dba Headway, was still pending in San Diego County Superior Court.

Q: Are California employers required to provide their employees with specific pay and wage information?

A: Yes, labor law is very specific about what data is required on an “accurate itemized wage statement.”

Q: What information is required on wage statements to comply with California Labor Code Section 226?

A: California employers must include the following information on wage statements to comply with labor laws: gross wages earned, total hours worked, the number of piece-rate units earned and the applicable piece-rates, any deductions, net wages earned, the dates of the pay period, employee name, last four digits of the employee’s social security number (or employee id number), name and address of the employer, hourly rates that apply to the pay period, and number of hours worked at each specified hourly rate.

Q: What qualifies as an exempt employee in California?

A: ​​To qualify as an exempt employee, California workers must pass a two-part test. First, the duties test. They must be “primarily” engaged in the duties that meet the test of the exemption. Second, the salary test. They must earn a monthly salary of at least twice California’s minimum wage for full-time employees (Labor Code § 515).

If you believe you were misclassified as exempt and denied overtime pay, or you were not paid for all hours worked, the employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP can evaluate your wage-and-hour claims and explain your options. Contact the firm’s offices in Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Riverside, or Chicago to discuss how you may be able to recover unpaid wages and pursue accountability under the law.

Did Cracker Barrel Face a Nationwide Overtime Lawsuit That the Ninth Circuit Narrowed on Jurisdiction Grounds?

Current and former Cracker Barrel servers filed a nationwide wage-and-hour lawsuit alleging violations of labor laws related to tip pooling practices.

Case: Harrington, et al. v. Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc.

Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Ninth Circuit Docket Nos.: 23-15650 and 24-1979

Decision Date: July 1, 2025

Trial Court: U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona

District Court Case No.: 2:21-cv-00940-DJH

Get to Know the Plaintiffs in the Case:

The plaintiffs, Andrew Harrington, Katie Liammaytry, Jason Lenchert, and Dylan Basch, are current and former Cracker Barrel employees who allege violations related to pay practices for tipped workers.

Learn More About the Defendant in the Case:

The defendant, Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc., is a restaurant chain incorporated and headquartered in Tennessee.

Case History: Harrington, et al. v. Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc.

The case was filed in Arizona District Court as an FLSA collective action under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). The district court authorized notice to a proposed collective that included servers in multiple states where Cracker Barrel allegedly used a tip-credit pay model, using the standard two-step conditional certification process.

Cracker Barrel objected to nationwide notice, arguing that some workers may be subject to arbitration agreements and that the Arizona court lacked personal jurisdiction over claims by out-of-state opt-ins with no connection to Arizona. The district court still authorized nationwide notice based on an Arizona-based named plaintiff. Cracker Barrel responded by obtaining an interlocutory appeal. As a result, the case ended up in the Ninth Circuit Court.

What is the Main Question Considered in the Case?

The main issue was whether the Supreme Court’s Bristol-Myers Squibb personal-jurisdiction framework applies to FLSA collective actions in federal court. The court needed to decide if it must evaluate personal jurisdiction for each opt-in plaintiff’s claim instead of relying on a named plaintiff’s forum connection to support claims nationwide.

Summary of the Allegations: Harrington, et al. v. Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc.

The plaintiffs alleged that Cracker Barrel violated the FLSA regarding wages for tipped employees, particularly in its use of the federal tip credit. Although the Ninth Circuit’s opinion focused on procedural issues, the case was a nationwide wage-and-hour dispute over tip-credit practices.

The Ninth Circuit’s Ruling in Harrington, et al. v. Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc.

The Ninth Circuit made three key holdings:

• The two-step conditional certification process is permissible. The panel found the district court did not abuse its discretion by using this procedure at the preliminary stage.

• If the validity of arbitration agreements is genuinely disputed, the district court is not required to resolve arbitrability for absent employees before authorizing notice.

• The Ninth Circuit held that Bristol-Myers applies to FLSA collectives. When a court relies on specific jurisdiction, it must determine whether each opt-in plaintiff’s claim is sufficiently connected to the defendant’s contacts with the forum state. The panel vacated the nationwide notice order and remanded the case because the district court did not conduct the Bristol-Myers analysis.

• In a separate memorandum disposition issued the same day, the Ninth Circuit also addressed Cracker Barrel’s motion to compel arbitration as to one plaintiff’s claims.

Why This Was a Landmark Wage-and-Hour Case in 2025

The decision in this wage and hour case didn’t change overtime law, but it reshaped where and how nationwide wage and hour cases can be litigated in the Ninth Circuit.

1. Limits nationwide FLSA collectives filed outside an employer’s home state.

2. Affects early case strategy

FAQ: Harrington, et al. v. Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc.

Q: What is an FLSA “collective action”?

A: It is a procedure under the FLSA that allows employees to pursue overtime or minimum-wage claims together, but workers generally must opt in by filing a written consent.

Q: What did the Ninth Circuit actually “narrow” in this case?

A: The court narrowed the ability to send nationwide notice from a forum that may not have personal jurisdiction over the claims of out-of-state workers. The district court must evaluate jurisdiction for each opt-in claim when the case relies on specific jurisdiction.

Q: Does this decision mean workers can never bring nationwide FLSA cases?

A: Not necessarily. It means plaintiffs must choose a forum that can support jurisdiction over the broader set of claims (for example, where the employer is subject to general jurisdiction) or tailor the collective to workers whose claims have a sufficient connection to the forum.

Q: Did the Ninth Circuit decide whether Cracker Barrel violated wage laws?

A: No. The opinion addressed procedural issues—notice, arbitration timing, and personal jurisdiction—not the ultimate merits of the wage claims.

If you believe you were denied overtime pay, paid under an unlawful tip-credit practice, or not compensated for all hours worked, the wage-and-hour attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP can help you evaluate your options under federal and state law. Contact the firm’s offices in Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Riverside, or Chicago to discuss potential unpaid wage claims.

Did Innovative Wall Systems Shortchange Workers on Overtime and Travel Time?

In recent news, the wage and hour enforcement case alleging that Innovative Wall Systems, Inc. engaged in multiple labor law violations came to an end with the Court ruling in favor of the plaintiff.

Case: Lori Chavez-Deremer v. Innovative Wall Systems

Court: U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California

Case No.: 3:25-cv-02240-GPC-DDL (also listed as 3:2025cv02240)

Filed: August 28, 2025

Disposition: Consent Judgment signed September 11, 2025 and filed September 12, 2025

Presiding Judge: Gonzalo P. Curiel

Get to Know the Plaintiff in the Case:

The plaintiff is Lori Chavez-DeRemer, in her official capacity as the U.S. Secretary of Labor, bringing the action under federal enforcement authority of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). minimum wage, overtime, and recordkeeping violations affecting 580 workers. The case serves as a solid reminder to employers that, even when workers are paid on a per-unit or production basis, accurate time records must be maintained and overtime premiums must be paid when employees exceed 40 hours in a workweek.

Who Was the Defendant in the Case?

The defendant, Innovative Wall Systems, Inc., is a California corporation doing business as Alta Drywall, and Jason Shane Bellamy (identified in public summaries as the company’s president and CEO).

A Brief History of the Case: Lori Chavez-Deremer v. Innovative Wall Systems

The U.S. Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division conducted an investigation into Innovative Wall Systems’ timekeeping and pay practices.

Aug. 28, 2025: The Department of Labor filed an enforcement lawsuit against Innovative Wall Systems in the Southern District of California.

Aug. 28, 2025: Notice of settlement was filed (same day complaint was filed).

Sept. 11, 2025: Consent of judgment was signed.

Sept. 12, 2025: Consent of judgment was filed.

The consent judgment imposed injunctive relief (prohibiting future FLSA violations), back wages, liquidated damages, and a civil money penalty.

What Were the Labor Law Violation Allegations?

Federal investigators alleged that Innovative Wall Systems failed to accurately record compensable time, including pre- and post-shift work, travel time (to and from job sites), and Saturday work. The complaint also alleged that the company failed to pay accurate overtime wages and that its problematic timekeeping practices resulted in wage-and-hour violations.

The Outcome of the Wage and Hour Action: Court-Ordered Relief

The consent judgment required the company to pay $790,000 in back wages to affected employees, liquidated damages, and a civil penalty.

Becoming a Landmark Wage-and-Hour Case of 2025

What makes this particular wage and hour case a landmark case of 2025? There are several reasons. First, it was a big case, in terms of the number of affected workers and the reach of the ripples it made in the industry. The alleged violations affected 580 identified workers. Second, the case also serves as an obvious example of how quickly federal enforcement can yield binding injunctive and monetary relief, with the exceedingly rapid progression from filing to settlement. Third, the case’s allegations centered on travel time as “compensable time,” a common sore spot in labor law in the construction industry. And fourth, the fact that a civil money penalty was included underscores that the government did not view this as a minor or technical offense, but a serious one that needed a heavy-handed consequence.

FAQ: Chavez-Deremer v. Innovative Wall Systems

Q: What is “travel time” and when can it be compensable?

A: Certain travel time can be compensable under wage-and-hour law, including (in many settings) travel that occurs during the workday, such as travel between jobsites (depending on the facts and the applicable rules).

Q: What are my rights regarding overtime pay in California?

A: In California, most employees are entitled to receive overtime pay for hours worked over 8 in a day or 40 in a week. Specific exemptions may apply, so it’s essential to consult with an attorney to understand your rights.

Q: How can I determine if I am misclassified as an exempt employee?

A: Misclassification can occur when employers incorrectly classify employees as exempt from overtime. If you believe you should be eligible for overtime pay, consider speaking with an employment attorney who can review your job duties and classification.

Q: What does it mean when a case ends in a “consent judgment”?

A: A consent judgment is basically a settlement that becomes a court order. The parties agree to specific terms, the judge signs off, and those terms are enforceable—so failing to follow them can lead to serious consequences.

Q: Does a consent judgment mean the employer admitted wrongdoing?

A: Not always. Many consent judgments resolve a dispute without a full trial or a formal admission of fault. But the bottom line is the same: once the court enters it, the order is binding.

If you believe you were denied overtime, shorted on travel time or other compensable hours, or paid in a way that did not meet minimum wage and overtime requirements, the wage-and-hour attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP can help evaluate your potential claims. Contact the firm’s offices in Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Riverside, or Chicago to discuss your options for pursuing unpaid wages and accountability under the law.