Lawrence Equipment Faces Overtime Class Action Listing Multiple Allegations

In recent news, Lawrence Equipment faces multiple labor law violation allegations after a former employee filed a labor law class action.

The Case: Pedroza v. Lawrence Equipment

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

The Case No.: 24STCV09752

The Plaintiff: Pedroza v. Lawrence Equipment

The plaintiff in the case, Rudy Pedroza, was employed by Lawrence Equipment Leasing, Inc. and Lawrence Equipment, Inc. (Lawrence Equipment) as a non-exempt, hourly employee from September 2022 through July 2023. Pedroza filed a class action lawsuit. The class action alleges multiple labor law violations by the defendants, including failure to pay minimum wages, failure to provide workers with required rest periods and meal breaks, failure to reimburse workers for necessary business expenses, and failure to provide their employees with accurate itemized wage statements.

Overtime and Minimum Wage Protection for California Employees:

Overtime protections primarily apply to non-exempt employees. Certain employees are exempt from overtime and sometimes minimum wage laws based on specific criteria related to their job duties, salary level, and industry. Common exemptions include executive, administrative, and professional employees, outside salespeople, and certain computer professionals. Other exceptions may include commissioned sales employees, agricultural workers, and interns/trainees.

The Defendant: Pedroza v. Lawrence Equipment

Lawrence Equipment, the defendant in the case, is a design and manufacturing company for production systems for products like tortillas, pizza, flatbreads, and other frying systems. They operate throughout California, including Los Angeles County, where the plaintiff worked. The company faces allegations that they violated the labor code by failing to pay workers minimum wage and overtime wages, failing to provide meal and rest breaks required by law, failing to reimburse employees for necessary business expenses, failing to provide the required itemized wage statements, and failing to provide employees with their wages when they were due.

According to the plaintiff’s allegations, the defendant’s business practices and policies allegedly led to incidents violating multiple labor codes, including numerous California Labor Code Sections (§§ 201, 202, 203, 204, 210, 226, 226.7, 246, 510, 512, 558, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198 and 2802).

The Case: Pedroza v. Lawrence Equipment

The Pedroza v. Lawrence Equipment class action lawsuit is pending in California’s Los Angeles 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. 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.

Lawrence Equipment Allegedly Violated Labor Law: Meal & Rest Break Violations

In recent news, an equipment rental company faces allegations of labor law violations stemming from missed meal breaks and rest periods.

The Case: Rudy Pedroza v. Lawrence Equipment Leasing, Inc., Lawrence Equipment, Inc. (Lawrence Equipment)

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

The Case No.: 24STCV09752

The Plaintiff: Rudy Pedroza v. Lawrence Equipment

The plaintiff in the case, Rudy Pedroza, filed a class action lawsuit, including allegations that rigorous work schedules prevented employees from taking their off-duty meal breaks and rest periods. Pedroza also claimed employees were not fully relieved of work duties for their meal periods.

The Defendant: Rudy Pedroza v. Lawrence Equipment

The defendant in the case, Lawrence Equipment, allegedly failed to offer workers the required meal breaks and rest periods, or more specifically, employees were periodically interrupted during their off-duty meal breaks with requests to complete tasks for Lawrence Equipment. According to the California lawsuit, the employer violated multiple California labor laws. Allegations listed in the lawsuit include:

• Failure to pay minimum wage

• Failure to pay overtime wages

• Failure to offer employees the required meal and rest periods

• Failure to reimburse their employees for required business expenses

• Failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements

• Failure to provide wages when due

When Should California Employers Provide Employees with Rest Breaks and Meal Periods?

California labor law mandates specific meal breaks and rest periods for non-exempt employees to make sure workers have enough time to rest and eat while at work or on the job. When employees work more than five hours daily, employers must offer them a 30-minute meal break. If an employee's total workday is six hours or less, they can waive their meal break if both the employer and employee agree. California employees are entitled to another 30-minute meal break on workdays that extend beyond 10 hours. (If the total hours worked in one day are no more than 12, the second meal break can be waived by mutual consent, but only if the employee did not waive their first meal break of the work day). Employers must also provide employees a ten-minute rest period for every four hours worked (or major fraction, defined as anything more than two hours). Rest periods are paid time taken in the middle of work. If an employer does not provide required rest periods, the employee must be compensated with one additional hour of pay at their regular rate for each workday the rest period is not offered.

The Case: Rudy Pedroza v. Lawrence Equipment

Lawrence Equipment employees were allegedly required to complete work at Lawrence Equipment for more than five hours during a shift without being offered an off-duty meal break. Additionally, the suit alleges Lawrence Equipment didn't offer their employees a second off-duty meal period as required on workdays when employees worked 10 hours. According to the plaintiff, Lawrence Equipment kept employees on call and on duty during what was supposed to be their "off duty" meal periods. Pedroza also claimed that the defendant did not provide additional compensation to employees for the missed meal breaks as required. The class action lawsuit, Rudy Pedroza v. Lawrence Equipment, is pending in California's LA County Superior Court.

If you have questions about how to file a wage and hour lawsuit, please get in touch with 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.

Woman Claims She Sustained Traumatic Brain Injury from Universal Studios Roller Coaster

In recent news, a couple, Geriann and Richard Clem filed a traumatic brain injury lawsuit against Universal Studios Development Partners, alleging a failure in their duty to safely maintain and operate one of their popular roller coaster rides.

The Case: Geriann and Richard Clem v. Universal Studios Development Partners

The Court: Circuit Court of Ninth Judicial Circuit, Orange County

The Case No.: 192961708

The Plaintiff: Geriann and Richard Clem v. Universal Studios Development Partners

The plaintiffs in the case, the Clems, filed a traumatic brain injury lawsuit after an incident that occurred at the Universal Studios Orlando theme park on February 11, 2023. During their time at the park, the plaintiff, Geriann, rode the Hollywood Rip Ride Rockit roller coaster, which travels at a top speed of 65mph and reaches a height of 167 feet. The roller coaster does not provide head restraints for riders. Geriann claims that her head shook violently and was repeatedly slammed against the headrest throughout the ride.

The Defendant: Geriann and Richard Clem v. Universal Studios Development Partners

The defendant in the case, Universal Studios Development Partners, is the owner/operator of Universal Studios Orlando theme park located at 1000 Universal Studios Plaza, Orlando, Florida, 32819. The plaintiffs allege that Universal Studios negligently operated, maintained, and controlled the Hollywood Rip Ride Rockit roller coaster and breached their duty of care to the plaintiff by failing to provide appropriate head restraints, failing to maintain the roller coaster in safe conditions, failing to correct unreasonably unsafe conditions, failing to provide adequate warning of danger, posting inadequate signs of potential harm outside the ride, and failing to provide proper safety precautions.

The Case: Geriann and Richard Clem v. Universal Studios Development Partners

The plaintiff in the case, Geriann and Richard Clem v. Universal Studios Development Partners, claims she suffered severe and permanent personal injuries and damages including a traumatic brain injury, pain, and suffering, disability, physical impairment, mental anguish, inconvenience, loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life in the past, loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life in the future; medical, nursing, and rehabilitation expenses in the past, medical nursing, and rehabilitation expenses in the future, lost wages in the past, and the capacity to earn money in the future. Geriann's husband, Richard Clem, also seeks damages for the loss of his wife's support, care, and consortium.

If you have questions about filing a California traumatic brain injury lawsuit, don't hesitate to contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced traumatic brain injury attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Appeals Court Rules that Parents are Bound by Son’s Arbitration Agreement in Wrongful Death Claim

In recent news, a Los Angeles skilled nursing facility run by Silverscreen Healthcare was sued for wrongful death by the parents of a resident who died while in their care.

The Case: Holland v. Silverscreen Healthcare, Inc.

The Court: California Court of Appeals, Second District, Second Division

The Case No.: B323237

The Plaintiff: Holland v. Silverscreen Healthcare, Inc.

The plaintiffs in the case, Holland, originally filed for survivor claims and a wrongful death claim in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, alleging dependent adult abuse and negligence on behalf of their deceased son, Skyler. Silverscreen Healthcare, Inc. (dba Asistencia skilled nursing facility) moved to compel arbitration of the entire complaint, arguing there was an arbitration agreement between Skyler and Asistencia. The trial court granted Asistencia's motion for the survivor claims. However, they denied the motion for the wrongful death cause of action, stating that the parents did not have an enforceable arbitration agreement with Asistencia (relying heavily on Avila v. Southern California Specialty Care, Inc. (2018) 20 Cal. App.5th 835 (Avila)).

The Defendants: Holland v. Silverscreen Healthcare, Inc.

The defendant, Silverscreen Healthcare, Inc. (dba Asistencia), filed for appeal. arguing Ruiz v. Podolsky (2010) 50 Cal.4th 838 (Ruiz) sets a precedent and that the parents are bound by the arbitration agreement signed by their son, so the parents' wrongful death claim is also subject to arbitration. The appeals court agreed with Asistencia and found that under Ruiz and Code of Civil Procedure Section 1295, the parents' wrongful death claim must go to arbitration along with Skyler's survivor claims.

Do Medical Arbitration Agreements Apply to Wrongful Death Claims?

Ruiz addressed the following issue: "[W]hen a person seeking medical care contracts with a health care provider to resolve all medical malpractice claims through arbitration, does that agreement apply to the resolution of wrongful death claims when the claimants are not themselves signatory to the arbitration agreement?" (Ruiz, supra, 50 Cal.4th at p. 841.) In seeking an answer, Ruiz focused on the legal intent behind Section 1295 (part of the Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act of 1975 (MICRA). MICRA's goal of reducing costs in the resolution of malpractice claims encourages arbitration of medical malpractice disputes, stating, "...all medical malpractice claims, including wrongful death claims, may be subject to arbitration agreements between a health care provider and the patient." (Ruiz, supra, 50 Cal.4th at p. 841; see also id. at p. 843).

The Case: Holland v. Silverscreen Healthcare, Inc.

After Skyler's death on October 29, 2020, his parents filed a lawsuit alleging four causes of action against Asistencia: dependent adult abuse, negligence, violation of resident's rights, and wrongful death. The first three causes of action are survivor claims (Skyler's claims) brought by his mother, Holland. Holland filed survivor claims in her capacity as Skyler's successor in interest. Holland and Wayne bring the fourth cause of action for wrongful death as individuals. Silverscreen Healthcare, Inc. filed an appeal after the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (No. 22STCV01945) found that the parents did not have an enforceable arbitration agreement with Asistencia. On appeal, Michelle Williams Court, Judge, reversed the decision and remanded with directions.

If you have questions about how to file a California wrongful death lawsuit, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw L.L.P. 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.

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.

WSH Management, Inc. Class Action Alleges Company Failed to Provide Overtime Pay

According to a recently filed California labor law complaint, WSH Management, Inc. failed to provide their employees with overtime wages, violating California Labor Law.

The Case: Judy Lee v. WSH Management, Inc.

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

The Case No.:24STCV10073

The Plaintiff: Judy Lee v. WSH Management, Inc.

The plaintiff in the case, Judy Lee, filed a class action complaint against WSH Management, Inc., claiming the company violated labor law when it failed to provide meal breaks and rest periods. As a non-exempt hourly employee, Lee worked for WSH Management, Inc. from December 13, 2023, to December 28, 2023. As a non-exempt hourly employee, Lee was entitled to legally required meal breaks and rest periods and the payment of minimum wage and overtime wages for all the hours she worked.

The Defendant: Judy Lee v. WSH Management, Inc.

The defendant, WSH Management, Inc., is a property management company operating out of California. The company faces numerous labor law violation allegations, including:

• pay minimum wages

• pay overtime wages

• provide required meal and rest periods

• reimburse for required business expenses

• provide accurate itemized wage statements

• provide wages when due

The allegations violate California Labor Code Sections §§ 201, 202, 203, 204, 210, 226.7, 510, 512, 558, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, and 2802.

The Case: Judy Lee v. WSH Management, Inc.

In the case Judy Lee v. WSH Management, Inc., the plaintiff alleges that standard practices and policies at WSH Management, Inc. were unlawful and failed to compensate employees for all time worked per labor law. According to the California class action lawsuit, WSH Management's employees allegedly could not take their off-duty meal breaks, and often, they weren't completely relieved of job duties and work responsibilities during their rest periods. Failing to provide the required meal breaks and rest periods violates labor law.

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

Did Medical Management International, Inc. Fail to Reimburse Employees for Work Expenses?

In recent news, a California lawsuit alleges that Medical Management International, Inc. violated labor law when they failed to reimburse employees for necessary work expenses.

The Case: Amber Wolfing v. Medical Management International, Inc.

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

The Case No.: 24CV007705

The Plaintiff: Amber Wolfing v. Medical Management International, Inc.

Amber Wolfing, who was engaged as a non-exempt hourly employee by the defendant in August 2019, initiated a class action lawsuit against Medical Management International. She claims that the company's illegal policies and practices resulted in the failure to adequately compensate their employees, as required by labor law.

The Defendant: Amber Wolfing v. Medical Management International, Inc.

Medical Management International, Inc., which offers veterinary healthcare services across California, is the defendant in the case brought by the plaintiff, Amber Wolfing. Wolfing alleges that during her employment, she was compelled to work during her off-duty meal breaks and also before shifts, performing mandatory COVID checks and temperature screenings without pay. Additionally, she contends that the company habitually engaged in "rounding" employees' clock-in and clock-out times in a manner that consistently benefited the employer, consequently leading to underpayment for the actual hours worked by employees.

What is "Time Worked" According to California Labor Law?

Under California labor law, "time worked" is defined as any period during which an employee remains under an employer's control, encompassing all instances where the employee is either actively working or is allowed to work, regardless of necessity. Instances of "time worked" include:

• Periods when the employee is on duty, present on the employer's premises, or stationed at a designated work location.

• Times when the employee is allowed to work, even if they are not engaging in their primary job functions.

• Moments when the employee must remain on the employer's premises or at a specific location controlled by the employer, which limits their ability to engage in personal activities.

This broad definition ensures that employees in California receive compensation for all time spent under employer directives, not limited to just productive work time. It includes time spent waiting, on standby, traveling under certain conditions, and performing other duties as dictated by the job and level of control exercised by the employer. This approach guarantees that workers are paid for all the time their freedom is restricted by job requirements.

The Case: Amber Wolfing v. Medical Management International, Inc.

Amber Wolfing alleges that due to the routine practice of rounding employee work hours at Medical Management International, Inc., she, along with other members of the class action in California, were deprived of their rightful minimum wage, overtime compensation, and legally mandated meal breaks, contrary to both federal and California Labor Laws. She argues that the defendant's failure to compensate employees for all hours worked is demonstrable through the company's own business records. The case, Amber Wolfing v. Medical Management International, Inc., is presently active in the Solano County Superior Court in California.

If you have questions about filing an employment law lawsuit, please contact 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.