La Costa Limousine Facing Overtime Pay Allegations

In recent news, La Costa Limousine has been facing allegations that it failed to provide rest periods and meal breaks in compliance with California labor law.

The Case: Justin Johnson v. B.T. Transportation, Inc., dba La Costa Limousine and La Costa Limousine LTD

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

The Case No.: 24CU007652C

Justin Johnson v. La Costa Limousine: More About the Plaintiff

The plaintiff in the case, Justin Johnson, was employed in California by La Costa Limousine from April 2022 to April 2024 as a non-exempt employee paid hourly. Johnson filed a class action lawsuit claiming La Costa Limousine violated labor law. According to the plaintiff, the company failed to provide rest periods, meal breaks, and overtime pay in compliance with labor law. According to the plaintiff, the employees’ rigorous work schedules prohibited taking off-duty rest breaks and meal periods. As a result, workers were often not fully relieved of duty during their breaks.

California Law Requires Employers to Offer Non-Exempt California Employees Breaks:

California labor law requires that employees provide their employees with a rest period of at least ten (10) minutes for a shift worked of at least two (2) to four (4) hours, a first and second rest period of at least ten minutes for 6-8 hour shifts, and a first, second and third rest period of at least ten minutes for 10+ hour shifts. California employers are required to offer workers one hour of wages if a worker misses a break.

The Defendant, La Costa Limousine Faces Numerous Allegations:

The defendant in the case, La Costa Limousine, provides chauffeur services in California, including San Diego, where the plaintiff worked. The allegations include:

• Failing to pay workers minimum wage

• Failing to provide rest periods and meal breaks

• Failing to pay overtime wages

• Failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements

• Failing to provide wages when due

• Failing to reimburse required business expenses

The Case: Justin Johnson v. La Costa Limousine

The plaintiff filed the California class action in the San Diego County Superior Court; the case is pending. According to the lawsuit, the defendant violated numerous California Labor Laws.

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

Did a California Oil Manufacturer Fail to Compensate their Employees?

A California worker recently filed a wage and hour lawsuit claiming an oil manufacturer violated labor law, specifically failing to provide workers with minimum wage and accurate overtime pay.

The Case: Villegas et al. v. AOCLSC Inc.

The Court: Los Angeles California Superior Court

The Case: 22STCV17702

Allegations of Minimum Wage & Overtime Pay Violations:

Plaintiffs allege that AOCLSC failed to provide minimum wages, overtime pay, and other compensation required by labor law. According to the original complaint, the defendant also allegedly failed to provide required meal breaks, rest periods, and accurate wage statements. Eligible class members were employed in California as non-exempt hourly workers between May 8, 2019, and May 15, 2023.

Defining the Non-Exempt Hourly Worker:

Non-exempt workers are protected by labor law's regulations regarding minimum wage, overtime pay, meal and rest breaks, etc. Exempt employees aren't eligible for overtime pay and are also excluded from minimum wage requirements. The most obvious difference between exempt and non-exempt workers is their method of payment. Exempt employees receive a salary, while non-exempt employees are paid hourly.

Settlement Resolves Wage and Hour Claims for Oil Manufacturer:

The defendant in the case, AOCLSC Inc., is a parent company of AOCUSA, an oil manufacturer (formerly Amalie Oil) facing allegations that they failed to pay their workers full wages. The $920,000 AOCLSC settlement resolving the wage and hour claims benefits the eligible class members (non-exempt workers employed by AOCLSC Inc. in California from May 8, 2019 to May 15, 2023).

More About the Case: Villegas et al. v. AOCLSC Inc.

The settlement in Villegas et al. v. AOCLSC Inc. also benefits a PAGE (Private Attorneys General Act) class of AOCLSC employees employed by the company in California as non-exempt hourly workers between June 1, 2021, and May 15, 2023. The amount each eligible class member receives is determined by the number of workweeks and PAGA pay periods they worked during the class period.

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

Pacific Bell Settles California Wage and Hour Class Action: $2.235M Settlement

In recent news, Pacific Bell resolved a California wage and hour class action lawsuit with a proposed $2.235 million settlement.

The Case: Macopson v. Pacific Bell Telephone Company, et al.

The Court: Los Angeles County California Superior Court

The Case No.: 22STCV13800

The Plaintiffs: Macopson v. Pacific Bell

The plaintiff in the case, Macopson, claimed Pacific Bell violated state wage laws. The class action was filed for Pacific Bell workers employed at California locations between April 26, 2018, and March 21, 2024. According to the original complaint, Pacific Bell underpaid their employees and failed to reimburse workers for necessary business expenses; both allegations allegedly violated California labor law. The plaintiffs filed claims under PAGA (California's Private Attorneys General Act). The state law enables workers to file these types of claims on behalf of other workers and California's Labor and Workforce Development Agency. Eligible class members are those who Pacific Bell employed in California between April 26, 2018, and March 21, 2024.

What is the Origin of California's PAGA?

California's Senate Bill 796 (SB 796) enacted the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) in 2004. The law was designed to reduce state labor law violations, address common unlawful and anti-competitive business practices, create the possibility for employees to collect penalties for labor law violations, and address staffing issues in state labor law enforcement.

California Telephone Company Faces Wage & Hour Violation Allegations:

The defendant in the case is Pacific Bell, a California telephone company owned by AT&T. The plaintiffs claim that Pacific Bell's business practices violated labor law. Whlle they declined to admit any wrongdoing, the company chose to resolve the claims through a settlement agreement.

Macopson v. Pacific Bell: Learn More About the Case

The terms of the $2.235 million settlement agreement designate that class members employed by the defendant between April 10, 2018, and March 21, 2014, receive the designated payment and that class members employed by the telephone company between April 10, 2021, and March 21, 2024, are eligible for the PAGA payment.

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

Amazon Settles for $3M in California Wage and Hour Class Action Lawsuit

In recent news, Amazon settled a California wage and hour class action lawsuit for $3 million.

The Case: Kryzhanovskiy et al. v. Amazon.com Services Inc., et al.

The Court: California Eastern U.S. District Court

The Case No.: 2:21-cv-01292-BAM

The Allegations: Kryzhanovskiy et al. v. Amazon.com Services Inc., et al.

The plaintiffs in the case, Leilani Kryzhanovskiy and Patricia Salazar, filed a California class action lawsuit alleging that Amazon violated California wage and hour laws. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Amazon’s California employees who worked overtime between July 22, 2017, and November 7, 2023, during the same workweek they received a signing bonus. In the original wage and hour complaint, the plaintiffs claimed Amazon violated California labor laws when they failed to include the signing bonus to determine the regular pay rate when calculating overtime pay. As a result, the workers were allegedly underpaid for their overtime.

The Defendant: Kryzhanovskiy et al. v. Amazon.com Services Inc., et al.

The defendant in the case, Amazon.com Services Inc., et al., is a multinational tech company and the largest online retailer in the U.S. (selling many products, including books, music, movies, electronics, apparel, etc.).

The Case: Kryzhanovskiy et al. v. Amazon.com Services Inc., et al.

The California Eastern District U.S. District Court approved a $3 million settlement to resolve the overtime violation claims in September 2024. The class counsel’s $1 million attorneys’ fees were included in the settlement amount. The settlement was intended to return alleged unpaid overtime wages to eligible California workers.

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 250 Fourth Development Employees Receive Full Wages for their Work?

A recently filed California wage and hour lawsuit claims that 250 Fourth Development employees did not receive full hourly wages.

The Case: Olga Pyanova v. 250 Fourth Development L.P.

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

The Case No.: CGC-24-617951

The Plaintiff: Olga Pyanova v. 250 Fourth Development L.P.

The plaintiff in the case, Olga Pyanova, filed a class action complaint after her short time employed by the Defendants, from March 2024 to May 31, 2024. As an hourly, nonexempt employee, Pyanova was entitled to meal breaks and rest periods required by law, as well as payment of minimum wage and overtime wages for all hours worked. During her time at the company, Pyanova claims she was required to work off the clock during her off-duty meal breaks. Additionally, the plaintiff claims the defendant's day-to-day operating procedure utilizes a standard practice of "rounding" time worked to the employer's benefit. During the course of her employment, Pyanova claims she (and other similarly situated workers) was paid less than she would have been paid if the company paid her for the actual time recorded instead of the adjusted "rounded" hours. The company also allegedly required mandatory temperature checks and COVID-19 screenings before clocking in for a work shift, resulting in more unpaid "off the clock" hours. In addition to unpaid off-the-clock work, the plaintiff claims that the company's non-discretionary incentive program (incentive wages based on performance) was not included in the employees' rate of pay when calculating overtime pay rates and meal and rest break premium pay, which resulted in alleged underpayment of both overtime pay and meal and rest break premium pay.

The Defendants: 250 Fourth Development L.P.

The defendants in the case, 250 Fourth Development, L.P., SFCanopy, LLC, and Paradigm Hotels Group LLC, were joint employers of Pyanova, the plaintiff, based on her paycheck, employee handbooks, and standard policies and procedures. The employer/defendant allegedly failed to provide their California employees with full required meal breaks and rest periods. The missed meal breaks and rest periods allegedly resulted in missed wages for employees. The defendant faces several violation allegations:

1. Minimum Wage Pay Violations

2. Overtime Wage Pay Violations

3. Meal Break Violations

4. Rest Period Violations

5. Wage Statement Violations

6. Business Expense Reimbursement Violations

7. Timely Payment of Wages Violations

8. Sick Pay Violations

The Case: Olga Pyanova v. 250 Fourth Development L.P.

In Olga Pyanova v. 250 Fourth Development L.P., the court must consider unpaid "off the clock" work issues and allegedly inaccurate timekeeping practices. In addition, the plaintiff's claims raise questions regarding reimbursement of necessary business expenses as workers needed to use their personal cell phones to complete their job duties.

If you have questions about filing a California 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 Associate Mechanical Contractors Underpay their California Workers?

Mark Frey recently filed a California class action claiming Associate Mechanical Contractors's inaccurate time keeping system resulted in numerous labor law violations.

Details About the Class Action: Frey v. Assoc. Mechanical Contractors

The Case: Mark Frey v. Assoc. Mechanical Contractors, Inc.

The Court: San Diego Superior Court

The Case No.: 24CU011410C

Frey v. Associate Mechanical Contractors: More About the Plaintiff

The plaintiff in the case, Mark Frey, filed a class action complaint in September 2024. According to the complaint, Frey (and other similarly situated California workers employed by the defendant) were underpaid because the company used an inaccurate timekeeping system to calculate their employee’s hours and pay.

The Defendant: Mark Frey v. Associate Mechanical Contractors, Inc.

The defendant in the case, Associate Mechanical Contractors, Inc., faces allegations that their timekeeping system used to calculate employee hours and total pay was inaccurate, resulting in minimum wage violations, overtime pay violations, meal break/rest period violations, inaccurate wage statements, unreimbursed business expenses, failure to pay sick wages, and failure to provide payment when it is due. All of the standard business practices listed constitute labor law violations.

Most of the labor law violation claims result from the company’s allegedly inaccurate timekeeping system. However, the plaintiff also states that he and other similarly situated employees were required to use their cell phones to perform their job duties, which he claims makes the employee’s personal cell phone a necessary business expense eligible for reimbursement.

The Case: Mark Frey v. Associate Mechanical Contractors, Inc.

In Mark Frey v. Associate Mechanical Contractors, Inc. the court must consider the plaintiff’s allegations regarding the company’s inaccurate timekeeping system and resulting alleged labor law violations alongside the defendant’s response to determine if the company has standard business practices and policies that violate labor law.

If you have questions about filing a California wage and hour lawsuit, please get in touch with 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.

Equinox Faces Labor Law Violation Allegations: Class Action Lawsuit Pending

Another business with significant operations in California faces allegations that their standard business practices violate labor law. Equinox workers claim the company violated multiple wage and hour laws, including failing to pay minimum wage.

The Case: Demarqus Wiggins v. Equinox San Rafael, LLC

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

The Case: CV0003780

The Plaintiff: Demarqus Wiggins v. Equinox San Rafael, LLC

Demarqus Wiggins is the plaintiff in the case. Wiggins filed a class action complaint in response to standard business practices he experienced at Equinox. The complaint alleges failures to provide eligible workers with timely, off-duty meal breaks and rest periods, minimum wage, etc.

Equinox, the Defendant, Facing Numerous Allegations:

The defendant in the case is Equinox San Rafael, LLC (aka Equinox). Equinox faces numerous allegations in the class action, each constituting a violation of the California Labor Code. The complaint includes the following allegations: failing to pay minimum wage, provide accurate overtime wages, offer meal breaks and rest periods, reimburse workers for business expenses, provide workers with accurate itemized wage statements, and failing to pay employees for the hours they worked at the time they are due.

(The class action allegations constitute violations of numerous sections of the California Labor Code).

More About the Case: Were Employees Required to Work "Off the Clock?"

The Demarqus Wiggins v. Equinox San Rafael, LLC class action lawsuit is currently pending in the Marin County Superior Court. California labor law and federal labor law (FLSA) require employers to pay every employee an established payday for a specified pay period at a rate at or above the designated minimum wage for all the hours worked in the specified pay period. Payment can be calculated using various methods: time, per piece, commission, etc. If employers provide payment based on time or the number of hours worked, "hours worked" is defined by the applicable Wage Order as "the time during which an employee is subject to the control of an employer and includes all the time the employee is suffered or permitted to work, whether or not required to do so." According to the plaintiff in the case, Equinox required workers to complete "off the clock" work or work completed before or after they "clock in" to work for their scheduled shift. Additionally, the plaintiff claims that Equinox employees were subject to standard business practices and policies that required working during off-duty meal breaks. Employees were allegedly not compensated with at least minimum wage for all the hours they worked in a pay period due to "off the clock" work, which is a labor law violation.

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