A Southern California School District Agreed to Implement Safety Changes Along with $15.75M Settlement

After the death of an asthmatic student, a Southern California School District agreed to a settlement of $15.75 million, including requirements that they implement safety changes.

The Case: Sepulveda v. Yucaipa-Calimesa Joint Unified School District

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

The Case No.: CIVDS2016435

The Plaintiff: Sepulveda v. Yucaipa-Calimesa Joint Unified School District

The plaintiff in the case was the mother of 13-year-old Adilene Carrasco, a Mesa View Middle School student. Adilene Carrasco died after suffering an asthma attack on the school campus. The incident occurred on Halloween 2019. The child's mother alleged the school failed to follow its own safety protocols, resulting in her daughter's death.

The Defendant: Sepulveda v. Yucaipa-Calimesa Joint Unified School District

The defendant in the case, Yucaipa-Calimesa Joint Unified School District, offered a $15,750,000 settlement less than a month before the case was due to go to trial.

The Case: Sepulveda v. Yucaipa-Calimesa Joint Unified School District

In addition to the monetary settlement offered to the student's mother, the district also agreed to the following:

1) partner with asthma medical experts in the area so they could offer appropriate asthma management training to teachers and school staff,

2) adopt the California School Board Association's best practices on school-based asthma management, and

3) implement specific changes to the current protocols on the safety and supervision of students with asthma or other medical conditions.

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.

Elderly Woman’s Family to Receive $6M Settlement for Wrongful Death Lawsuit

In recent news, an elderly woman who died when an oncoming vehicle hit her as she crossed in an unmarked city crosswalk will receive a $6 million settlement.

The Case: Sheram Nadimyan, et al. v. City of Glendale

The Court: Los Angeles County Superior Court

The Case No.: 19STCV29013

The Plaintiff: Sheram Nadimyan, et al. v. City of Glendale

The plaintiff in the case is the family of an elderly woman, Novar Ismailyan, who was struck and killed by a car in an unmarked city crosswalk in Glendale. The family claimed that the crosswalk was unsafe.

The Defendant: Sheram Nadimyan, et al. v. City of Glendale

The defendant in the case, the City of Glendale, reached a $6 million settlement with the victim's family while the jury deliberated.

The Case: Sheram Nadimyan, et al. v. City of Glendale

In the case Sheram Nadimyan, et al. v. City of Glendale, the jurors returned on a Monday for a third day of deliberations to a settlement agreement. The Ismailyan family sued the city of Glendale after she was killed in 2018. Ismailyan's death occurred when she was using an unmarked city crosswalk one evening when she was struck by an oncoming vehicle. There was no settlement offer before the trial. During the trial, counsel for the plaintiff asked for an award of over $10 million based on arguments that the city crosswalk lacked necessary signage and other warnings to notify drivers to yield to pedestrians in the crosswalk. While the city maintained throughout the trial that the speeding driver caused the incident, the driver was not an active party involved in the case during the trial. While the jury deliberated, the two parties reached a settlement agreement.

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.

West Hills Hospital Allegedly Failed to Provide Breaks to Employees

In a recently filed California wage and hour lawsuit, West Hills Hospital faces allegations that they violated labor law, including failing to provide employees with legally required breaks and rest periods.

The Case: Emeterio Basto, Jr. v. West Hills Hospital

The Court: Los Angeles County Superior Court

The Case No.: 23STCV05973

The Plaintiff: Emeterio Basto, Jr. v. West Hills Hospital

The plaintiff in the case, Emeterio Basto, Jr., was employed by West Hills Hospital from January 2020 to July 2022 as a non-exempt, hourly employee entitled to the legally required meal and rest periods and payment of minimum and overtime wages for all time worked. However, according to the court documents, West Hills Hospital allegedly failed to fully relieve employees for their legally required off-duty breaks, resulting in employees missing out on minimum and overtime wages they were due.

The Defendant: Emeterio Basto, Jr. v. West Hills Hospital

The defendant in the case, West Hills Hospital, owns and operates a hospital in Los Angeles County, California.

The Case: Emeterio Basto, Jr. v. West Hills Hospital

In the case Emeterio Basto, Jr. v. West Hills Hospital, the plaintiff alleges that West Hills Hospital’s standard business practices and policies violated labor law by failing to pay overtime wages, failing to provide meal and rest periods as required by law, failing to pay minimum wage, failing to give the workers itemized accurate wage statements, failing to reimburse employees for expenses necessary to fulfill their job duties, failing to pay wages when due, and failing to pay sick wages. Such alleged misconduct gives rise to civil penalties. The lawsuit also alleges that West Hills Hospital employees could not take off-duty meal breaks because the work schedules were so rigorous. According to the plaintiff, the company did not provide employees who forfeited their legally mandated breaks with additional compensation as required. The case is currently pending in the Los Angeles County Superior Court.

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 wage and hour attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Logan's Roadhouse Faces Allegations they Did Not Provide Employees with Breaks

In a recently filed California class action lawsuit, Logan's Roadhouse faces allegations that they did not provide their employees with breaks, which violates labor law.

The Case: Symba Rose v. LG Enterprises LLC dba Logan's Roadhouse, J and A Food Service, Inc.,

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

The Case No.: 23CV00426

The Plaintiff: Symba Rose v. Logan's Roadhouse

The plaintiff in the case, Symba Rose (previously named Jamal Shabazz), was employed by Logan's Roadhouse (aka the Defendants) from July 2022 to August 2022 as a non-exempt hourly employee entitled to the protections offered employees by state and federal employment laws.

The Defendant: Symba Rose v. Logan's Roadhouse

The defendants in the case, LG Enterprises LLC dba Logan's Roadhouse, and J and A Food Service, Inc., were joint employers of the plaintiff, according to documents the company provided to the plaintiff. The plaintiff performed work for both, respectively, so both are considered jointly responsible by the plaintiff for actions leading to employment law violations as described in the lawsuit. Defendant owns, operates, or manages Logan's Roadhouse restaurants in California, including the Logan's Roadhouse in Butte County, where Symba Rose worked.

The Allegations: Symba Rose v. Logan's Roadhouse

The plaintiff claims that they engaged in numerous employment law violations during his time with the restaurant. According to the complaint, the defendants allegedly violated California Labor Code Sections §§ 201, 202, 203, 204, 210, 226, 226.7, 246, 510, 512, 558, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, and 1198 with practices and policies that resulted in:

• failing to pay minimum wages

• failing to pay overtime wages

• failing to provide required meal and rest periods

• failing to provide wages when due

• failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements

The Case: Symba Rose v. Logan's Roadhouse

According to court documents, Logan's Roadhouse employees, like the plaintiff, had rigorous work schedules, which allegedly left them unable to take off-duty rest breaks. In addition, they were not fully relieved of duty for their rest periods. Additionally, Logan's Roadhouse's and J and A Food Service's workers were allegedly not paid one hour of their regular working wage in place of missed breaks and rest periods.

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

Did Pacific Production Plumbing Violate California Labor Law?

A recent California lawsuit alleges that Pacific Production Plumbing violated employee protections outlined in federal and state labor law.

The Case: Thomas E. Weathermon III v. Pacific Production Plumbing

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

The Case No.: 37-2022-00006167-CU-OE-CTL

The Plaintiff: Thomas E. Weathermon III v. Pacific Production Plumbing

The plaintiff in the case, Thomas E. Weathermon III, filed a class action complaint against Pacific Production Plumbing. In the complaint, Weathermon alleged that Pacific Production Plumbing failed to provide their employees with timely, off-duty meal and rest periods as required by law.

The Defendant: Thomas E. Weathermon III v. Pacific Production Plumbing

The defendant in the case, Pacific Production Plumbing, provides plumbing services to private, commercial, and construction customers throughout California, including San Diego, where the plaintiff worked.

The Case: Thomas E. Weathermon III v. Pacific Production Plumbing

In the case Thomas E. Weathermon III v. Pacific Production Plumbing, the defendant allegedly violated California Labor Code Sections §§ 201, 202, 203, 204, 226, 226.7, 246, 510, 512, 558, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198 and 2802 by engaging in practices and policies that resulted in:

• failing to pay employees at least minimum wage for all hours worked

• failing to pay overtime wages for all overtime hours worked

• failing to provide required meal and rest periods as mandated by employment law

• failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements to all employees

• failing to provide wages when due

• failing to reimburse workers for necessary business expenses

PAGA Violation: Thomas E. Weathermon III v. Pacific Production Plumbing

The lawsuit also alleges Pacific Production Plumbing violated the Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA"), which gives rise to civil penalties. PAGA allows aggrieved employees to file a lawsuit to recover civil penalties for themselves, other employees, and the State of California for Labor Code violations. PAGA "deputizes" aggrieved employees as private attorneys general, allowing them to take action to enforce the Labor Code on behalf of California (Cal. Lab. Code section 2699(c)).

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

Public Health Institute Allegedly Violated Meal & Rest Break Labor Laws

In recent news, allegations indicate that Public Health Institute may have violated labor law by failing to adhere to meal and rest break requirements.

The Case: Anysia Taylor v. Public Health Institute

The Court: Alameda County Superior Court

The Case No.: 23CV028034

The Plaintiff: Anysia Taylor v. Public Health Institute

The plaintiff in the case, Anysia Taylor, worked for Public Health Institute from January 2021 to April 2022. Taylor was employed as a non-exempt hourly worker entitled to the protections offered by federal and state labor law, including meal and rest periods, payment of minimum wage, and payment of overtime wages for all time worked. The plaintiff brings the class action wage and hour suit on behalf of herself and other eligible class members seeking losses that resulted from the employer’s policies and practices that violated labor law and failed to compensate non-exempt hourly employees lawfully. According to court documents, the plaintiff claims the defendant retained wages due to the plaintiff and other class members.

The Defendant: Anysia Taylor v. Public Health Institute

The defendant in the case, Public Health Institute, operates programs throughout California intended to improve overall health, equity, and wellness through new research, strengthening partnerships and programs already in place, and supporting and advancing specific public health policies.

The Case: Anysia Taylor v. Public Health Institute

The plaintiffs and eligible class members seek an injunction preventing similar unlawful conduct in the future and relief for economic injuries resulting from Public Health Institute’s allegedly illegal practices and policies.

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 wage and hour attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Prudent Security Solutions Inc. Faces Wage and Hour Class Action

In recent news, Prudent Security Solutions Inc. faces a wage and hour class action citing multiple labor law violations.

The Case: Brian Bradford and Lisa Bradford v. Prudent Security Solutions Inc.

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

The Case No.: 23STCV04656

The Plaintiff: Brian Bradford and Lisa Bradford v. Prudent Security Solutions Inc.

The plaintiffs in the case are Brian and Lisa Bradford. Prudent Security Solutions Inc. employed Brian Bradford from March 2022 to April 2022. Bradford was a non-exempt employee paid hourly plus non-discretionary bonuses and was eligible for federal and state labor law protections, including minimum wage, overtime wage, meal breaks, and rest periods.

The Defendant: Brian Bradford and Lisa Bradford v. Prudent Security Solutions Inc.

The defendant in the case, Prudent Security Solutions Inc., provides security services throughout California, including Los Angeles.

The Case: Brian Bradford and Lisa Bradford v. Prudent Security Solutions Inc.

According to the lawsuit, Prudent Security Solutions allegedly committed various labor code violations, including failing to pay minimum wages, failing to pay overtime wages, failing to provide required meal and rest periods, failing to reimburse employees for necessary expenses, failing to pay wages when due, failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements, failing to pay vacation wages when due, failing to make lawful deductions, failing to pay wages during employment promptly, and failing to pay sick pay.

California Labor Law: Minimum Wage

According to California law, employers must pay their employees no less than the applicable minimum wage rate for all hours worked during the designated pay period on an established payday. The relevant wage order defines "hours worked" as the time during "which an employee is subject to the control of an employer," including the time the employee is suffered or allowed to work, even if they are not required to work.

The Case: Brian Bradford and Lisa Bradford v. Prudent Security Solutions Inc.

According to the plaintiff, Prudent Security Solutions required its employees to perform work before and after their scheduled shifts and during "off-duty" meal breaks. The plaintiffs also allege Prudent Security Solutions failed to compensate employees for time employees spent under the employer's control "off-the-clock." As a result, Prudent Security Solutions allegedly failed to provide employees with the applicable minimum wage for all hours worked.

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 wage and hour attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.