AM Retail Group, Inc. Faces Workplace Retaliation Allegations

In recent news, AM Retail Group, Inc. faces allegations of workplace retaliation violating labor law.

The Case: Brenda Cardenas v. AM Retail Group, Inc.

The Court: San Diego County Superior Court

The Case No.: 37-2023-00011858-CU-OE-CTL

The Plaintiff: Brenda Cardenas v. AM Retail Group, Inc.

The plaintiff in the case, Brenda Cardenas, was employed by AM Retail Group, Inc. from January 2022t through April 6, 2022, classified as non-exempt and paid hourly. As an hourly, non-exempt employee, Cardenas was entitled to legally required meal and rest periods, payment of minimum wage, and accurate calculations and payment of overtime wages.

The Defendant: Brenda Cardenas v. AM Retail Group, Inc.

The defendant in the case, AM Retail Group, Inc., is a corporation that owns and operates clothing stores and conducts a substantial amount of business in California.

The Case: Brenda Cardenas v. AM Retail Group, Inc.

According to the complaint, AM Retail Group, Inc. allegedly failed to pay their employees for all the hours under the employer’s control, including when the plaintiff and other employees were required to submit to mandatory COVID-19 screening before clocking in for their shifts. As the time worked off the clock did not qualify for overtime premium payment, the plaintiff also claims that the defendant failed to pay minimum wage and overtime wages for all hours the plaintiff and other eligible class members worked while “off the clock.” In addition to minimum wage and overtime violations, the plaintiff allegedly reported incidences of disability discrimination to HR. According to court documents, the plaintiff was enduring continual pressure, obligations, and mistreatment by supervisors due to her mental and physical state. According to the plaintiff, when HR failed to respond to her complaints, she was forced to resign due to the hostile, discriminatory work environment.

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

Lala Trucking & Independent Contract Driver Face Wrongful Death Lawsuit

In recent news, a trucking company faces allegations of wrongful death in a lawsuit filed by the victim’s partner.

The Case: Spangle the Clown v. Lala Trucking, Inc. and Baljinder Singh

The Court: US District Court for the Western District of Missouri

The Case No.: 6:2022cv03324

The Plaintiff: Spangle the Clown v. Lala Trucking, Inc. and Baljinder Singh

The plaintiff in the case, Spangle the Clown, filed a wrongful death lawsuit against a truck driver and the trucking company he was driving for when the incident occurred. Before legally changing his name over 20 years ago, Spangle the Clown was known as Ronald Poindexter. In October 2022, Spangle the Clown filed a wrongful death lawsuit in Greene County, Missouri due to the death of his partner, Gloria Jean Grimsley. The two had a magic act and posed as Mr. and Mrs. Claus annually during the Christmas season. Grimsley’s adopted daughter, Amanda May, later filed a motion to join the wrongful death lawsuit.

The Defendant: Spangle the Clown v. Lala Trucking, Inc. and Baljinder Singh

The defendants in the case are Lala Trucking, Inc. and Baljinder Singh. Lala Trucking, Inc, founded by Varinder Singh in 2019, is a Fresno, California-based trucking company, and Baljinder Singh is one of their drivers. On March 23rd, just after 5 am, Grimsley was driving on US Highway 65 just north of Springfield when a 2016 Freightliner Cascadia driven by Bljinder Singh struck her vehicle, a 2000 Pontiac Montana. Singh was operating his vehicle as an independent contractor for Lala Trucking. Grimsley was pronounced dead upon arrival at the hospital.

The Case: Spangle the Clown v. Lala Trucking, Inc. and Baljinder Singh

Lala Trucking operates four trucks and uses six drivers. The company hauls fresh produce, meat, and other refrigerated foods. The Missouri Department of Transportation investigated the incident citing Baljinder Singh and Lala Trucking for failure to yield the right of way, an unsafe driving violation, and a false report of the driver’s record of duty status, which is an hours-of-service violation. Both defendants listed were also hit with two vehicle maintenance violations after the fatal crash, including an automatic airbrake adjustment system failing to compensate for wear and a clamp/roto-type brake that was out of adjustment on the truck.

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.

Capitol Police Officer’s Girlfriend Files Wrongful Death Lawsuit

Officer Brian Sicknick's girlfriend, Sandra Garza, filed a wrongful death lawsuit on January 6th, seeking $10 million from Trump and two others listed defendants.

The Case: Sandra Garza v. Donald J. Trump, Julian Elie Khater, and George Pierre Tanios

The Court: U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia

The Case No.: 1:23-cv-00038

The Plaintiff: Sandra Garza v. Donald J. Trump, Julian Elie Khater, and George Pierre Tanios

The plaintiff in the case, Sandra Garza, was Officer Sicknick's longtime girlfriend. Garza filed a wrongful death lawsuit accusing the defendants' campaign of lies and incendiary rhetoric as the cause of the U.S. Capitol ransacking in 2021 and, ultimately, the wrongful death of Sicknick. Officer Brian Sicknick died a day after the siege. Khater and Tanios, defendants in the case, were arrested in March 2021 and accused of assaulting officers with pepper spray. One of the officers they assaulted, Sicknick, collapsed later that day and died the following day after he suffered a series of strokes. After a medical examiner determined Sicknick died of natural causes, neither of the two listed defendants was charged with the officer's death. However, Khater pleaded guilty to assaulting Sicknick and another officer, USCP Officer Caroline Edwards.

The Defendant: Sandra Garza v. Donald J. Trump, Julian Elie Khater, and George Pierre Tanios

Sicknick died while trying to stop the insurrectionist effort at the Capitol. Garza's wrongful death lawsuit listed three defendants. Julian Khater and George Tanios were sentenced in federal court for their part in the assault on Sicknick. Tanios purchased the pepper spray used during the attack. Khater received one of the most severe sentences of the Capitol riot defendants.

The Case: Sandra Garza v. Donald J. Trump, Julian Elie Khater, and George Pierre Tanios

Garza's lawsuit requests $10 million in damages to be paid by each defendant named in the suit. In addition, the plaintiff requests punitive damages and attorney fees and costs. Edwards, the other officer Khater pleaded guilty to assault with pepper spray during the riot, suffered a traumatic brain injury due to the assault.

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.

Saputo Dairy Foods USA, LLC Faces a California Class Action Complaint

Saputo Dairy Foods USA, LLC faces a class action complaint alleging that they violated California Labor Law.

The Case: Juan Romero v. Saputo Dairy Foods USA, LLC

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

The Case No.: 23CV-00403

The Plaintiff: Juan Romero v. Saputo Dairy Foods USA, LLC

The plaintiff in the case,  Juan Romero, filed a class action complaint alleging that Saputo Dairy Foods USA, LLC violated labor law. The alleged violations include:

• failure to pay minimum wage

• failure to pay overtime wages

• failure to provide legally required meal breaks and rest periods

• failure to provide workers with accurate itemized wage statements

• failure to reimburse employees for necessary business expenses

• failure to pay sick wages

The Defendant: Juan Romero v. Saputo Dairy Foods USA, LLC

The defendant in the case, Saputo Dairy Foods USA, LLC, produces, markets, and distributes various dairy products. According to the plaintiff, the company allegedly failed to reimburse their employees for required business expenses. According to California Labor Code § 2802, "an employer shall indemnify his or her employee for all necessary expenditures or losses incurred by the employee in direct consequence of the discharge of his or her duties..." According to the plaintiff, Juan Romero, he and other eligible California Class Members were allegedly required to use their personal cell phones to complete their job duties.

The Case: Juan Romero v. Saputo Dairy Foods USA, LLC

In the case Juan Romero v. Saputo Dairy Foods USA, LLC, the defendant faces allegations of numerous labor law violations. The claims included in the complaint violate Labor Code sections §§ 201-204, 226, 226.7, 233, 510, 512, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 2802, and the applicable Wage Order(s). The alleged conduct could result in civil penalties.

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

Forest Lawn Mortuary & Forest Lawn Memorial-Park Association Face Allegations They Failed to Pay Employee Wages

In recent news, Forest Lawn Mortuary & Forest Lawn Memorial-Park Association face allegations they failed to provide their employees wages for all hours worked.

The Case: Devonte Rojo v. Forest Lawn Mortuary & Forest Lawn Memorial-Park Association

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

The Case No.: 23STCV02200

The Plaintiff: Devonte Rojo v. Forest Lawn Mortuary & Forest Lawn Memorial-Park Association

The plaintiff in the case, Devonte Rojo, worked for Forest Lawn Mortuary & Forest Lawn Memorial-Park Association in Los Angeles from January 2019 through February 2022. Rojo was a non-exempt employee paid hourly and entitled to minimum wage, overtime, and rest period/meal break protections provided by federal and state labor laws. Rojo filed a class action complaint alleging that the defendant violated the labor code by failing to pay minimum wage, failing to pay overtime wages for overtime hours worked, failing to provide legally required rest periods, failing to provide employees with accurate, itemized wage statements, failing to reimburse employees for eligible business expenses, and failing to provide legally mandated meal breaks.

The Defendant: Devonte Rojo v. Forest Lawn Mortuary & Forest Lawn Memorial-Park Association

According to the complaint, the defendant in the case, Forest Lawn Mortuary & Forest Lawn Memorial-Park Association (Forest Lawn), were joint employers of Devonte Rojo, the plaintiff. Forest Lawn operates funeral businesses in Los Angeles and throughout California.

The Case: Devonte Rojo v. Forest Lawn Mortuary & Forest Lawn Memorial-Park Association

The case documents in Devonte Rojo v. Forest Lawn Mortuary & Forest Lawn Memorial-Park Association allege that rigorous work schedules left Forest Lawn employees unable to take off-duty meal breaks and that the employees were not fully relieved from their job duties when they did take a break or meal break. Instead, the plaintiff claims employees were interrupted during off-duty breaks and meal periods to complete tasks for the company. Allegedly, employees were required to work more than five hours a shift without being provided their off-duty meal break as required by law. Additionally, the plaintiff claims Forest Lawn failed to offer a second off-duty meal period when employees were required to work 10 hours in one shift. Forest Lawn policy allegedly required employees to remain on call/duty during rest periods and meal breaks. Due to this uniform policy and practice at the company, employees were required to forfeit their meal breaks without receiving additional compensation as required by law.

If you have questions about how to file a California wage and hour class action 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.

Kelly Services Global, LLC Facing a PAGA-Only Action Alleging California Labor Code Violations

In recent news, aggrieved employees claim Kelly Services Global, LLC violated California Labor Code when failing to fully relieve employees for their rest periods and meal breaks, resulting in off-the-clock work.

The Case: Yuri Fischer v. Kelly Services Global, LLC

The Court: Orange County Superior Court

The Case No.: 30-2023-01304927-CU-OE-CXC

The Plaintiff: Yuri Fischer v. Kelly Services Global, LLC

The plaintiff in the case, Yuri Fischer, was employed by the defendant, Kelly Services Gobal, LLC in California from June 2021 through June 2022 as a non-exempt employee, paid hourly. As an hourly, non-exempt employee, Fischer was entitled to legally required meal and rest periods and payment of minimum wage and overtime wages due for all his time worked.

The Defendant: Yuri Fischer v. Kelly Services Global, LLC

The defendant in the case, Kelly Services Global, LLC, is a limited liability company operating in California, providing management solutions and staffing services to top companies across numerous industries. According to the complaint, Kelly Services Global, LLC allegedly failed to fully relieve employees for legally required thirty-minute meal breaks and regularly required employees to work more than four hours without providing the legally required rest period (10 minutes). According to California state law, the off-duty rest periods must be free of work-related duties and employer control.

The Case: Yuri Fischer v. Kelly Services Global, LLC

In the case Yuri Fischer v. Kelly Services Global, LLC, the plaintiff files seeking only to recover PAGA civil penalties for himself and current and class members. He does not seek to recover anything other than penalties as permitted by California Labor Code § 2699. The State of California can enforce state labor laws through employees suing under the PAGA as a proxy or agent of California state labor law enforcement agencies. Actions to recover civil penalties under PAGA are essentially law enforcement actions intended to protect the public and do not benefit private parties involved. PAGA-only actions do not seek to recover damages but seek to enforce Labor Code. The plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the defendant violated numerous labor laws. The case is currently pending in the Orange County Superior Court.

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.

DCH Torrance Imports Inc. Faces Class Action Alleging Labor Code Violations

In recent news, a lawsuit alleges that DCH Torrance Imports Inc. violated the labor code by failing to provide their employees with timely rest breaks and meal periods.

The Case: Aaron Castro v. DCH Torrance Imports Inc. ("DCH Toyota of Torrance")

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

The Case No.: 23STCV02400,

The Plaintiff: Aaron Castro v. DCH Torrance Imports Inc. (DCH Toyota of Torrance)

The plaintiff in the case, Aaron Castro, filed a class action complaint against the defendant, DCH Torrance Imports Inc (DCH Toyota of Torrance). Castro was employed by the defendant in the case since December 2012 as a non-exempt employee paid hourly plus non-discretionary bonuses. As a non-exempt employee, Castro is entitled to labor law protection, including minimum wages, overtime pay, rest periods, and meal breaks, as determined by federal and state labor laws. Allegedly the company failed to provide employees with timely, off-duty meal and rest periods and engaged in uniform practices and policies that failed to fully compensate employees for their time and, in doing so, violated California State Labor Law.

The Defendant: Aaron Castro v. DCH Torrance Imports Inc. (DCH Toyota of Torrance)

The defendant in the case, DCH Torrance Imports Inc. (Toyota of Torrance), is a California corporation that owns, operates, or manages auto dealerships throughout California, including the location in Los Angeles county where the plaintiff, Aaron Castro, worked. California law requires all employers to pay their employees on the designated payday for each pay period, to provide employees no less than the established minimum wage for hours worked, and to calculate hours worked as the time during which an employee is "subject to the control of an employer" including the time the employee is permitted to work, even if they are not required to work. Allegedly, DCH Toyota of Torrance required employees to perform off-the-clock work before and after their scheduled shifts and during their meal breaks and rest periods. The company also allegedly failed to compensate employees for the time spent under the employer's control when performing off-the-clock work. This alleged uniform practice at the company resulted in the claimed violations of minimum wage and overtime law.

The Allegations: Aaron Castro v. DCH Torrance Imports Inc. (DCH Toyota of Torrance)

According to court documents, the plaintiff alleges that the defendant, DCH Toyota of Torrance, allegedly violated numerous labor laws (California Labor Code Sections §§ 201, 202, 203, 204, 210, 226, 226.7, 246, 510, 512, 558, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, and 2802) when they engaged in the following business practices and activities:

Failing to pay minimum wages

Failing to pay overtime wages

Failing to provide required meal and rest periods

Failing to pay wages when due

Failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements

Failing to reimburse employees for required expenses

The Case: Aaron Castro v. DCH Torrance Imports Inc. (DCH Toyota of Torrance)

The plaintiffs and class members seek an injunction to prevent the company from engaging in future repeat labor law violations and relief for economic injuries incurred due to DCH Toyota of Torrance's allegedly illegal business practices and policies. The case, Aaron Castro v. DCH Torrance Imports Inc., is currently pending in the Los Angeles County Superior Court of the State of California.

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