Jersey Mike's Subs Faces Class Action for Alleged Wage and Hour Violations in California

Jersey Mike's Subs faces scrutiny after a class action lawsuit raises serious allegations about California employment law violations, particularly regarding unpaid wages and missed meal and rest breaks.

The Case: Stephanie Immings v. Great Subs LLC, dba Jersey Mike's Subs

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

The Case No.: 30-2024-01408266-CU-OE-CXC

The Plaintiff: Stephanie Immings v. Great Subs LLC, dba Jersey Mike's Subs

The plaintiff in the case, Jersey Mike's Subs employees, filed a lawsuit claiming the company failed to compensate them for all hours worked, including time spent on duties before and after scheduled shifts and during what were supposed to be off-duty meal breaks. The plaintiffs allege that such practices deprive them of earned wages and violate mandated rest periods, further asserting that the company failed to meet minimum wage and overtime requirements.

The Defendant: Stephanie Immings v. Great Subs LLC, dba Jersey Mike's Subs

The defendant in the case, Jersey Mike's Subs, is a well-known fast-food franchise operated by several LLC entities, including GREAT SUBS SC II, LLC. The company is accused of multiple breaches of labor standards determined by federal and state labor law. The lawsuit details a pattern of alleged neglect concerning employee compensation and labor rights, spotlighting the franchise's operational protocols as they relate to employee scheduling, wage payment, and break periods.

History of the Case: Stephanie Immings v. Great Subs LLC, dba Jersey Mike's Subs

The employment law complaint was filed in Orange County Superior Court, and encapsulates significant claims against Jersey Mike's Subs under various sections of the California Labor Code. Allegations include failing to pay minimum and overtime wages, not providing required meal and rest breaks, and failing to issue accurate wage statements, among other infractions. This legal battle spotlights the fast-food industry's practices regarding employee rights under stringent California labor laws.

The Case: Stephanie Immings v. Great Subs LLC, dba Jersey Mike's Subs

The Stephanie Immings v. Great Subs LLC, dba Jersey Mike's Subs case is critical for understanding the enforcement of California's overtime laws and the protection of worker rights in the fast-food industry. It highlights the ongoing issues within sectors that employ hourly workers and the importance of compliance with labor regulations to ensure fair treatment. For workers in California, particularly in the fast-food industry, this lawsuit underscores the legal avenues available to seek redress for labor violations and the importance of employers adhering to state laws designed to protect employee wages and working conditions. This ongoing litigation serves as a potent reminder of the need for vigilance and advocacy in upholding labor standards and safeguarding workers' rights.

If you have questions about filing a California wage and hour lawsuit, please contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Skilled employment law attorneys can assist you at various law firm offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

The Huntley Hotel Faces Lawsuit Over Alleged California Labor Law Violations

The Huntley Hotel is embroiled in a class action lawsuit alleging that the company failed to adhere to California's strict labor codes, particularly concerning overtime wages and rest breaks. This legal challenge spotlights the ongoing issues within the hospitality industry regarding employee rights and compensation.

The Case: Jason Marello v. Second Street Corporation, dba The Huntley Hotel

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

The Case No.: 24STCV16122

The Plaintiff: Jason Marello v. Second Street Corporation, dba The Huntley Hotel

The plaintiff in the case, Jason Marello, filed on behalf of employees of The Huntley Hotel, alleging that the hotel has consistently failed to provide legally required meal and rest breaks. According to their claims, the hotel's rigorous scheduling and understaffing have frequently forced them to work through breaks and extend their shifts without appropriate compensation. The plaintiffs argue that these practices violate California Labor Code provisions regarding minimum wages, overtime pay, and rest periods and also impact their well-being and productivity.

The Defendant: Jason Marello v. Second Street Corporation, dba The Huntley Hotel

The defendant in the case, Second Street Corporation, dba The Huntley Hotel, operated by Second Street Corporation, is a well-known entity in the Los Angeles hospitality sector. It is accused of multiple breaches of California employment law, including failure to provide mandatory meal and rest breaks, pay wages on time, and properly compensate for overtime. These allegations paint a picture of a workplace that potentially prioritizes operational needs over statutory labor rights.

Case History: Jason Marello v. Second Street Corporation, dba The Huntley Hotel

The case, Jason Marello v. Second Street Corporation, dba The Huntley Hotel, was filed in the Los Angeles County Superior Court and highlights a critical examination of labor practices at The Huntley Hotel. The legal proceedings aim to address the alleged systematic denial of lawful rest periods and proper wages to hotel employees, underlining significant concerns about compliance with state labor regulations. The case continues to unfold, with both sides presenting their arguments.

The Case: Jason Marello v. Second Street Corporation, dba The Huntley Hotel

Jason Marello v. Second Street Corporation, dba The Huntley Hotel, is an ongoing lawsuit against The Huntley Hotel pivotal for workers across California, particularly in the hospitality industry. It underscores employers' need to comply strictly with California overtime laws and rest break requirements. This case serves as a crucial reminder of employers' legal obligations towards their employees and the serious repercussions of violating these labor laws. It also emphasizes the role of judicial oversight in ensuring that employment practices within the state remain fair and lawful, providing a safer and more equitable working environment for all Californians.

If you have questions about filing an overtime or wage and hour lawsuit, 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.

Did Driftwood Hospitality Allegedly Failed to Provide Workers with Meal and Rest Breaks

In a significant case highlighting issues within California's hospitality sector, Driftwood Hospitality Management has been accused of violating multiple provisions of California labor law, including the failure to provide mandatory meal and rest breaks to its employees.

The Case: Matthew Shachno and Ivan Martinez v. 8757 MV Payroll, LLC

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

The Case No.: 37-2024-00029491-CU-OE-CTL

The Plaintiffs: Matthew Shachno and Ivan Martinez v. 8757 MV Payroll, LLC

The lawsuit alleges that employees at Driftwood Hospitality frequently could not take required off-duty meal breaks due to work demands. Employees claim they were often called upon during their breaks to perform tasks, violating California's strict labor laws that mandate uninterrupted meal and rest periods for employees working over five hours.

The Defendant: Matthew Shachno and Ivan Martinez v. 8757 MV Payroll, LLC

Driftwood Hospitality Management, a well-known entity in the hospitality industry, is accused of systematic labor violations across its operations. The allegations include:

1. Not paying minimum wages and overtime

2. Failing to provide meal and rest breaks as required by law

3. Not reimbursing necessary business expenses

4. Other wage-related infringements

Case History: Matthew Shachno and Ivan Martinez v. 8757 MV Payroll, LLC

This class action, filed in the San Diego County Superior Court, represents a broader challenge against the hospitality management company's practices. The lawsuit details a pattern of behavior by Driftwood Hospitality that reportedly compels employees to forfeit legally entitled breaks and wages under the company's stringent work policies.

The Case: Matthew Shachno and Ivan Martinez v. 8757 MV Payroll, LLC

This case underscores a critical concern for Californian workers, particularly in the hospitality industry, regarding enforcing labor laws designed to protect employee rights. It highlights the ongoing need for vigilance and legal accountability to ensure workers are compensated fairly for all hours worked and granted their lawful breaks. The outcome of this lawsuit could have significant implications for labor practices in hospitality and beyond, reinforcing the importance of adhering to California employment law and potentially setting a precedent for similar cases.

If you have questions about filing a California wage and hour lawsuit, please contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw L.L.P. Experienced employment law attorneys can help you in various law firm offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

California Supreme Court Rules on Wage Statement Penalties: Implications for Employers

The California Supreme Court's recent decision in Naranjo v. Spectrum Security Services, Inc. marks a significant development in California employment law, particularly concerning wage statement compliance under Labor Code section 226. This ruling has profound implications for how penalties are assessed for wage-statement violations, especially when employers act based on reasonable, good-faith beliefs.

The Case: Naranjo v. Spectrum Security Services, Inc.

The Court: California Supreme Court

The Case: S279397

The Plaintiff: Naranjo v. Spectrum Security Services, Inc.

The plaintiff in the case, Gustavo Naranjo, worked as a security guard employed by Spectrum Security Services. Naranjo initiated a class action lawsuit alleging the company's failure to accurately report premium pay for missed meal breaks on wage statements. This case arose after an earlier ruling which clarified employers' obligations to list such premiums, leading to significant legal questions about intentional compliance failures.

The Defendant: Naranjo v. Spectrum Security Services, Inc.

The defendant in the case, Spectrum Security Services, claims they were faced with unclear legal standards at the time and allegedly believed in good faith that their wage statements were compliant with existing laws. This belief was based on the ambiguous legal environment before the Supreme Court's clarification, which left many employers uncertain about their reporting requirements.

Case History: Naranjo v. Spectrum Security Services, Inc.

After multiple rounds in the legal system, including an initial Supreme Court clarification in 2022 and a subsequent appeal, the case hinged on whether Spectrum's actions constituted a "knowing and intentional" violation of section 226. The Court of Appeal found that Spectrum's reasonable good-faith misunderstanding precluded such a finding. The Supreme Court affirmed this perspective, significantly influencing how penalties for wage-statement inaccuracies are judged.

The Case: Naranjo v. Spectrum Security Services, Inc.

This decision underscores a pivotal shift in California overtime lawsuit assessments, particularly for cases involving wage statement accuracy under California employment law. Employers can now defend against penalties for wage-statement violations if they demonstrate a reasonable and good-faith belief in their compliance, even if that belief is later shown to be incorrect. This ruling not only protects employers in cases of genuine legal uncertainty but also emphasizes the need for them to stay informed and cautious about compliance in areas where the law is well-established. For California workers, this development stresses the importance of understanding their rights and the conditions under which employers might be excused from penalties, shaping how violations of California overtime law are addressed moving forward. On May 6, 2024, the California Supreme Court ruled that employers are not liable for statutory penalties if they provide inaccurate or incomplete wage statements in good faith and with reasonable belief that the statements are accurate.

If you need to discuss filing a California employment law complaint, contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP for guidance. Their seasoned employment law attorneys are available to assist you from their San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago offices.

Did Sol Business Services LLC Violate California Labor Law?

Exploring the Tatiana Armstrong v. Sol Business Services LLC case reveals that former employee Armstrong claims Sol Business Services LLC allegedly failed to provide employees with complete and accurate wage statements, as California law requires.

The Case: Tatiana Armstrong v. Sol Business Services LLC

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

The Case No.: CU24-04407

The Plaintiffs: Tatiana Armstrong v. Sol Business Services LLC

The plaintiff in the case, Tatiana Armstrong, filed a class action complaint alleging Sol Business Services LLC violated California labor law. According to the plaintiff, Sol Business Services failed to reimburse employees for work expenses (violating California Labor Code 2802) and provide employees with accurate itemized wage statements.

The Defendant: Tatiana Armstrong v. Sol Business Services LLC

The defendants in the case, Sol Business Services LLC, allegedly violated labor law. California employers are required to provide employees with an accurate itemized wage statement. Armstrong was an hourly employee, so the supplied wage statement should reflect the applicable hourly rates during the pay period alongside the total number of hours worked and the dates included in the pay period (California Labor Code Section 226(a)). Allegedly, the required information was not included on the wage statements the Defendant issued Armstrong during her employment. Armstrong also claims the company required her to use her personal cell phone to complete her job duties without reimbursing her for the associated expenses.

The Case: Tatiana Armstrong v. Sol Business Services LLC

The case, Tatiana Armstrong v. Sol Business Services LLC, is pending in the Solano County Superior Court of the State of California.

If you have questions about how to file a California Class Action employment law lawsuit, please don't hesitate to contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Their 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, empowering you to take action.

Medtrans LLC Faces Labor Law Violation Allegations

According to a recently filed California labor law complaint, Medtrans allegedly failed to provide accurate wage statements.

The Case: Sydney Kemp v. Medtrans LLC

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

The Case No.: STK-CV-UOE-2024-6856

The Plaintiff: Sydney Kemp v. Medtrans LLC

Sydney Kemp, the plaintiff in the case, filed a class action complaint alleging that Medtrans LLC violated the California Labor Code.

The Defendant: Sydney Kemp v. Medtrans LLC

The defendant in the case, Medtrans LLC, allegedly failed to provide employees with accurate and itemized wage statements, as required by California Labor Law. The complaint alleges that Medtrans engaged in multiple business practices in violation of labor law, including:

• Failure to Pay Minimum Wage

• Failure to Provide Overtime Pay

• Failure to Legally Required Meal Periods & Rest Breaks

• Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized Pay Statements

• Failure to Reimburse Workers for Required Expenses

• Failure to Pay Sick Wages

Do All California Employers Need to Provide Itemized Wage Statements?

California employers must provide detailed wage statements for each wage payment to employees. These wage statements must include several specific pieces of information to comply with California Labor Code Section 226. Here are the required details that must be included on the wage statements:

• Gross Wages Earned

• Total Hours Worked

• Piece-Rate Units Earned/Any Applicable Piece Rate

• All Deductions

• Net Wages

• Pay Period (specific dates)

• Employee Name and Identifying Employee Number or the Last 4 of the SSN

• Employer's Name and Address

• Hourly Rates Used During the Pay Period

• Hours Worked at Each Pay Rate During the Pay Period

Failure to provide a wage statement with all of this information or providing inaccurate information can lead to penalties under California law. Employers must ensure they are in full compliance to avoid legal complications.

The Case: Sydney Kemp v. Medtrans LLC

The Sydney Kemp v. Medtrans LLC case is pending in California Superior Court, San Joaquin County.

If you have questions about how to file a California wage and hour lawsuit, please don't hesitate to get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Their 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, empowering you to take action.

NNT Express & Trytime Transport Face Allegations of Worker Misclassification

In recent news, NNT Express & Trytime Transport faces serious labor law violation allegations claiming they misclassified workers as independent contractors when they allegedly qualified to be classified as employees, potentially leading to significant legal consequences.

The Case: Clinton Simril and Eliaz Garcilazo v. NNT Express & Trytime Transport

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

The Case No.: 37-2024-00014517-CU-OE-CTL

The Plaintiffs: Clinton Simril and Eliaz Garcilazo v. NNT Express & Trytime Transport

The plaintiffs in the case, Clinton Simril and Eliaz Garcilazo, filed a class action complaint against NNT Express, Inc. and Trytime Transport, LLC ("NNT Express and Trytime Transport"), alleging misclassification of its employees as independent contractors. The plaintiffs filed on behalf of workers for NNT Express and Trytime Transport in California hired as independent contractors (from March 27, 2020, to the present).According to plaintiff allegations, the defendant violated the California Labor Code protections by allegedly misclassifying its California employees as independent contractors.

The Defendant: Clinton Simril and Eliaz Garcilazo v. NNT Express & Trytime Transport

The defendants in the case, NNT Express & Trytime Transport, hire California workers to provide truck driving services to their customers. According to the class action lawsuit, the company controlled and directed their "independent contractors" work by scheduling their hours, providing job site info, issuing written company policies, distributing procedures for job performance and workplace conduct, etc.

The Case: Clinton Simril and Eliaz Garcilazo v. NNT Express & Trytime Transport

Given the alleged practices of NNT Express & Trytime Transport in exerting significant control over the schedules, work details, and conduct of their truck drivers, these drivers arguably should not be classified as independent contractors but rather as employees. This distinction is critical under California labor law, particularly following standards set by the California Supreme Court's Dynamex decision and the subsequent Assembly Bill 5 (AB5), which codifies the "ABC" test for determining worker status. According to this test, a worker is considered an employee unless the employer can prove their worker is not being controlled or directed in the performance of their job duties, that the worker completes tasks outside the usual course of the employer's business, and is independently established as a trade, occupation or business. The behavior of NNT Express & Trytime Transport, as described by the plaintiffs, suggests a level of control that would generally qualify their workers as employees, which would entitle them to the protections and benefits of labor law such as minimum wage, overtime compensation, rest periods, and other working conditions guaranteed by state labor laws. This type of worker misclassification undermines the legal rights of workers and can leave California companies open to significant legal liabilities and penalties for California Labor Law violations. The plaintiffs claim that NNT Express and Trytime Transport violated California Labor Code Sections §§ 204, 210, 221, 226.7, 226.8, 510, 512, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198 & 2802 by failing to pay workers minimum wage and overtime wages, provide workers with meal periods and rest breaks, provide accurate, itemized wage statements, reimburse employees for necessary business expenses, and provide wages when they are due. The class action lawsuit, Clinton Simril and Eliaz Garcilazo v. NNT Express & Trytime Transport is currently pending in the San Diego County Superior Court of the State of California.

If you have questions about how to file a California Class Action employment law lawsuit, please don't hesitate to contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Their 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, empowering you to take action.