Dreamfields Faces a California Wage and Hour Class Action Lawsuit

Allegations in a California wage and hour class action lawsuit filed on September 9, 2022, accuse Dreamfields Brands, Inc., Dreamfields California, LLC, and Dreamfields Security, Inc. of California Labor Code violations when they allegedly failed to pay their workers for all of the time worked.

The Case: Adriana Marquez v. Dreamfields Brands, Inc., Dreamfields California LLC, Dreamfields Security, Inc.

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

The Case No.: CVRI2203871

The Plaintiff: Adriana Marquez v. Dreamfields Brands, Inc., Dreamfields California LLC, Dreamfields Security, Inc.

The plaintiff in the case, Adriana Marquez, was employed by the defendant from May 2021 through November 2021 as a non-exempt hourly employee at Dreamfields in Riverside. Marquez filed a class action wage and hour lawsuit alleging that the defendant, her joint employer, violated labor law when they failed to provide meal and rest breaks.

The Defendant: Adriana Marquez v. Dreamfields Brands, Inc., Dreamfields California LLC, Dreamfields Security, Inc.

The defendant in the case, Dreamfields Brands, Inc., Dreamfields California LLC, and Dreamfields Security, Inc., produce, harvest, and retail cannabis products throughout California, including Riverside. According to the lawsuit, the defendant employed the plaintiff at their Riverside, California location.

The Allegations: Adriana Marquez v. Dreamfields Brands, Inc., Dreamfields California LLC, Dreamfields Security, Inc.

The allegations in the class action lawsuit violate numerous sections of the California Labor Code, including California Labor Code Sections §§ 201, 202, 203, 204, 210, 226.7, 246, 510, 512, 558, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198 and 2802. Consider the allegations listed in the class action:

• Failure to pay minimum wages

• Failure to pay overtime wages

• Failure to provide mandatory meal breaks and rest periods

• Failure to reimburse workers for required business expenses

• Failure to provide wages when due

• Failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements

The Case: Adriana Marquez v. Dreamfields Brands, Inc., Dreamfields California LLC, Dreamfields Security, Inc.

The case, Adriana Marquez v. Dreamfields Brands, Inc., Dreamfields California LLC, and Dreamfields Security, Inc., is currently pending in the Riverside County Superior Court of the State of California.

If you have questions about how to file a California overtime 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.

Employees Claim Wax Center Partners Holdco LLC Violated Employment Law

A class action lawsuit alleges Wax Center Partners Holdco LLC failed to provide their employees with required meal breaks and rest periods. Based on the missed meal breaks and rest periods, the employer also failed to provide employees with the total wages due, violating labor law.

The Case: Jileea Jordan v. Wax Center Partners Intermediate Holdco LLC

The Court: Alameda Superior Court of the State of California

The Case No.: 22CV018596

The Plaintiff: Jileea Jordan v. Wax Center Partners Intermediate Holdco LLC

The plaintiff in the case, Jileea Jordan, was employed by the defendant in California from February 18th,2022 to April 26th, 2022. At all times during her employment, she was classified as a non-exempt employee and paid hourly wages, which entitled her to the legally required meal breaks and rest periods, payment of minimum wage, overtime pay for overtime hours worked, accurate wage statements, etc.

The Defendant: Jileea Jordan v. Wax Center Partners Intermediate Holdco LLC

The defendant in the case, Wax Center Partners Intermediate Holdco LLC, offers waxing services and other skin care solutions from certified wax specialists. According to the plaintiff in the case, the defendant regularly required employees to work during their off-duty meal breaks, stay available during their rest periods, and complete other “off the clock” work like mandatory drug testing, Covid-19 testing, temperature checks, etc. as a condition of employment.

The Case: Jileea Jordan v. Wax Center Partners Intermediate Holdco LLC

According to the class action wage and hour lawsuit, Wax Center Partners Holdco LLC allegedly failed to fully relieve employees for their legally required meal breaks and rest periods. Plaintiff also claims that employees were required to work over four hours without a 10-minute rest period. In addition to violating meal and rest period laws, minimum wage, and overtime pay laws, Defendant allegedly failed to provide their employees with complete, accurate, and itemized wage statements showing gross and net wages earned. California Labor Code requires employers to issue each employee an accurate itemized wage statement in writing showing gross wages earned, hourly rates used during the pay period, and time worked at each applicable hourly rate used to calculate the employee’s total pay. The case, Jileea Jordan v. Wax Center Partners Intermediate Holdco LLC, is currently pending in the Alameda Superior Court of the State of California.

If you have questions about how to file a California employment law class action, 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.

JBPerry Holdings and Valley Inventory Face Allegations of Failing to Pay Employee Wages

JBPerry Holdings and Valley Inventory are facing allegations that they violated the labor code by failing to pay their employees.

The Case: Tatiana Armstrong v. JBPerry Holdings and Valley Inventory

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

The Case No.: FCS059079

The Plaintiffs: Armstrong v. JBPerry Holdings and Valley Inventory

The plaintiff in the case, Tatiana Armstrong, filed a class action lawsuit on October 10, 2022. In the lawsuit, Armstrong alleged that the companies violated several labor laws:

• Unfair competition

• Failure to pay minimum wages

• Failure to pay overtime wages

• Failure to provide legally required meal periods

• Failure to provide mandatory rest periods

• Failure to pay wages when due

• Failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements

The Defendant: Armstrong v. JBPerry Holdings and Valley Inventory

The defendants in the case, JBPerry Holdings and Valley Inventory are both California corporations. According to the lawsuit, the two defendants were joint employers of Tatiana Armstrong. JBPerry Holdings and Valley Inventory provide inventory services such as item level and financial auditing. The plaintiff was employed at their Solano, California location from April 2021 to October 2021 as a non-exempt, hourly employee.

Details of the Case: Armstrong v. JBPerry Holdings and Valley Inventory

Due to their busy work schedules, JBPerry Holdings' and Valley Inventory Service's workers allegedly had to miss their off-duty meal breaks. The plaintiff claims they were not fully relieved of work duties for their rest periods for the same reason. The plaintiff describes off-duty meal breaks as being interrupted from time to time to fulfill work tasks for the company. Additionally, the company required employees to work shifts over five hours without providing a legally required off-duty meal break. On top of that, the plaintiff alleges that JBPerry Holdings and Valley Inventory Service violated labor law by failing to give the employees a second off-duty meal period during their workday (when employees were completing ten (10) hours shifts). Employees allege they had to remain on-call and on duty during their "off-duty" meal breaks. While the employees were required to forfeit meal breaks, the company did not provide additional compensation. Armstrong seeks compensation for her losses and the losses of other class members caused by the company's uniform policy. According to the class action wage and hour lawsuit, this business practice resulted in the company retaining wages due to their employees and failing to fully compensate them as required by law.

If you have questions about how to file 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 in various law firm offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Did Community Action Partnership of San Bernardino County Retaliate Against an Employee

In recent news, Community Action Partnership of San Bernardino County allegedly retaliated against one of their employees. According to reports, the retaliation followed the employee's report of alleged safety issues in the company's workspace.

The Case: Madison and Marable v. Community Action Partnership of San Bernardino County

The Court: California Superior Court for the County of San Bernardino

The Case No.: CIVSB2218158

The Plaintiff: Madison and Marable v. Community Action Partnership of San Bernardino County

The plaintiffs in the case, Madison and Marable, claim that the defendant failed to properly maintain standard safety measures in the office where employees were required to work. Beginning in March 2022, the plaintiff repeatedly reported the alleged safety issues to the company. According to the plaintiff, the company did not take the necessary action to protect the safety of its workers. The plaintiff alleges that the company retaliated against her as a direct consequence of the complaints by continuing to expose employees to ill co-workers and leaving employees unprotected in the office workspace.

The Defendant: Madison and Marable v. Community Action Partnership of San Bernardino County

The defendant in the lawsuit, Community Action Partnership of San Bernardino County, is a nonprofit agency whose work benefits San Bernardino County residents. The organization is part of a National Community Action Network established under the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, known as President Lyndon B. Johnson's "War on Poverty" movement. The group is also part of the National Association for State Community Services Programs (CAPSBC). The group dedicates its efforts to minimizing and eliminating homelessness and poverty.

Details of the Case: Madison and Marable v. Community Action Partnership of San Bernardino County

In addition to allegations that the defendant supported an unsafe work environment and allegedly retaliated against the plaintiff when she engaged in a protected act (reporting a hazardous work environment), the lawsuit includes claims that the defendant violated other labor laws. On top of creating an unsafe work environment and retaliation, the lawsuit alleges the company failed to relieve employees for legally required thirty-minute meal breaks and provide employees with ten-minute rest periods (when they work more than four hours).

If you have questions about how to file a California retaliation 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.

SAS Retail Services, LLC Faces Allegations they Failed to Reimburse Employees for Expenses

In recent news, SAS Retail Services faces allegations that they violated California employment law when they failed to reimburse their employees for business expenses.

The Case: Seaman and Rose v. SAS Retail Services LLC

The Court: Orange County Superior Court

The Case No.: 30-2022-01286330-CU-OE-CXC

The Plaintiff: Seaman and Rose v. SAS Retail Services LLC

The plaintiffs in the case, Epiphany Seaman and Courtney Rose, filed a class action complaint alleging multiple California employment law violations and demanding a jury trial. Seaman was employed by SAS Retail Services in California from November 2019 through February 2022, classified as a non-exempt employee and paid hourly. Rose was also employed by SAS Retail Services in California since June 2018 and was classified as a non-exempt employee and paid hourly. Based on their classifications, both Seaman and Rose were entitled to legally required meal and rest periods, minimum wage payment, and overtime wages. The plaintiffs filed the class action for themselves and others in similar circumstances at SAS Retail Services, seeking compensation for their losses.

The Defendant: Seaman and Rose v. SAS Retail Services LLC

The defendant in the case, SAS Retail Services LLC, SAS Retail Services LLC, operates out of California developing merchandising service programs for some of the nation's largest retailers and consumer brands.

The Case: Seaman and Rose v. SAS Retail Services LLC

The pending lawsuit alleges that SAS Retail Services failed to reimburse employees for required business expenses in violation of California Labor Code §2802. During their employment, the plaintiffs (and other California Class Members) were allegedly required to use their personal cellular phones, personal vehicles, and personal home offices to complete their necessary job duties. The plaintiffs also allege that SAS Retail Services failed to pay minimum wage and overtime wages. The lawsuit claims the plaintiffs received a non-discretionary bonus allegedly not included in calculations to determine their regular pay rate. Failing to include the bonus in calculations created a violation of minimum wage law, inaccurate overtime pay rates, etc. According to the plaintiffs, the non-discretionary bonus or "incentive program" was described to prospective employees and new hires as part of the company's compensation package.

If you have questions about filing a California overtime lawsuit, don't hesitate to contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw L.L.P. 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.

Sweet Widow Agreed to Settle Wrongful Death Lawsuit for $8 Million

In recent news, the widow of Daniel Shaver, Laney Sweet, agreed to settle her wrongful death lawsuit for $8 million.

The Case: Sweet v. City of Mesa

The Court: United States District Court, District of Arizona

The Case No.: CV-17-00152-PHX-GMS

The Plaintiff: Sweet v. City of Mesa

The plaintiff in the case, Laney Sweet, is the widow of Daniel Shaver. Sweet filed a wrongful death lawsuit after her husband, Shaver, was shot and killed by the police when he was unarmed, standing outside his suburban hotel room in Arizona. The police officer involved in the shooting, former Mesa, Ariz., Police Officer Philip Brailsford, was charged with murder in the fatal 2016 shooting of the unarmed Shaver. However, the jury acquitted him of the murder charge. Sweet filed a lawsuit in 2017 against both parties seeking $75 million in damages. Last year, the city of Mesa settled a similar case with Shaver’s parents for an undisclosed amount.

The Defendant: Sweet v. City of Mesa

The City of Mesa police responded to a call in January 2016 stating that someone at the hotel was pointing a gun out a window. Once on the scene, the police ordered 26-year-old Shaver to exit his hotel room, lie face down in the hallway, and not make any sudden movements, or he could risk being shot. Former Officer Brailsford shot Shaver as he lay on the ground outside his hotel room. No gun was found on Shaver’s body, but two pellet rifles (related to his pest control job) were in his hotel room. The detective investigating the shooting of Shaver noted that while Shaver lay on the ground outside his room, the officers ordered him to crawl toward them. The detective concluded that while the movement Shaver made was similar to reaching for a pistol, it appeared that he was pulling up his loose-fitting basketball shorts that fell when he was ordered to crawl forward.

The Case: Sweet v. City of Mesa

A settlement notice was filed in Arizona’s federal court, showing that Laney Sweet and the couple’s two children will receive $8 million from the City of Mesa. The probate court approved the settlement’s terms and appointed a temporary conservator. All of Sweet’s legal claims are dismissed without prejudice in exchange for the settlement.

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

Judge Awards Petito Family $3M in Wrongful Death Lawsuit

A year after their daughter's highly publicized death, Gabby Petito's family is awarded a $3 million settlement for their wrongful death lawsuit.

The Case: Petito v. Laundrie

The Court: Circuit Court, 12th Judicial Circuit, Sarasota County Florida

The Case No.: 2022 CA 1128 SC

The Plaintiff: Petito v. Laundrie

The plaintiffs in the case were the family of Gabby Petito. Following the death of their daughter, the family filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Brian Laundrie's estate. The Petito family lost their daughter, and before the mystery surrounding her death was solved, her fiance, Brian Laundrie, committed suicide - leaving behind a notebook in which he confessed. Denied the opportunity to confront their daughter's killer, Gabby's family sought justice through the court system in the only way they knew how.

The Defendant: Petito v. Laundrie

The defendant in the case was Laundrie's estate. Laundrie was Gabby's fiance. At the time of her death, the two were on a cross-country road trip "out West" in a converted van that Gabby was documenting on social media.

The Case: Petito v. Laundrie

The final judgment from the 12th Judicial Circuit Court awarded the Petito family $3 million from Laundrie's estate. According to the media, the family filed a second lawsuit pending in Sarasota, claiming that Laundrie's parents concealed their son's confession before he returned home to Florida in September 2021 without Gabby. Separate from the wrongful death lawsuit against Laundrie's estate, the Petito family also filed a wrongful death lawsuit against the Moab City Police Department to demand accountability and seek change in the system. Shortly before Gabby's death, the police responded to a domestic violence call and interviewed Gabby and Brian. Gabby's body was later found in the Spread Creek Dispersed Area of the Bridger-Teton National Forest (September 19, 2021). Federal investigators confirmed it was Gabby Petito two days later, but the death was initially ruled a homicide, with Brian Laundrie noted as a person of interest. Laundrie went missing shortly after the search for Petito began. His body was later recovered in the Carlton Reserve. The FBI obtained his confession written in a notebook in October 2021. In the notebook, Laundrie confessed to the murder of Gabby Petito, his former fiance. It is suspected that Gabby Petito was a victim of long-term domestic violence and abuse. The family hopes to bring attention to the lack of response and proper police training that could have put a stop to this situation and avoided the fatal outcome.

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