Jersey Mike's Subs Faces Class Action for Alleged Wage and Hour Violations in California

Jersey Mike's Subs faces scrutiny after a class action lawsuit raises serious allegations about California employment law violations, particularly regarding unpaid wages and missed meal and rest breaks.

The Case: Stephanie Immings v. Great Subs LLC, dba Jersey Mike's Subs

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

The Case No.: 30-2024-01408266-CU-OE-CXC

The Plaintiff: Stephanie Immings v. Great Subs LLC, dba Jersey Mike's Subs

The plaintiff in the case, Jersey Mike's Subs employees, filed a lawsuit claiming the company failed to compensate them for all hours worked, including time spent on duties before and after scheduled shifts and during what were supposed to be off-duty meal breaks. The plaintiffs allege that such practices deprive them of earned wages and violate mandated rest periods, further asserting that the company failed to meet minimum wage and overtime requirements.

The Defendant: Stephanie Immings v. Great Subs LLC, dba Jersey Mike's Subs

The defendant in the case, Jersey Mike's Subs, is a well-known fast-food franchise operated by several LLC entities, including GREAT SUBS SC II, LLC. The company is accused of multiple breaches of labor standards determined by federal and state labor law. The lawsuit details a pattern of alleged neglect concerning employee compensation and labor rights, spotlighting the franchise's operational protocols as they relate to employee scheduling, wage payment, and break periods.

History of the Case: Stephanie Immings v. Great Subs LLC, dba Jersey Mike's Subs

The employment law complaint was filed in Orange County Superior Court, and encapsulates significant claims against Jersey Mike's Subs under various sections of the California Labor Code. Allegations include failing to pay minimum and overtime wages, not providing required meal and rest breaks, and failing to issue accurate wage statements, among other infractions. This legal battle spotlights the fast-food industry's practices regarding employee rights under stringent California labor laws.

The Case: Stephanie Immings v. Great Subs LLC, dba Jersey Mike's Subs

The Stephanie Immings v. Great Subs LLC, dba Jersey Mike's Subs case is critical for understanding the enforcement of California's overtime laws and the protection of worker rights in the fast-food industry. It highlights the ongoing issues within sectors that employ hourly workers and the importance of compliance with labor regulations to ensure fair treatment. For workers in California, particularly in the fast-food industry, this lawsuit underscores the legal avenues available to seek redress for labor violations and the importance of employers adhering to state laws designed to protect employee wages and working conditions. This ongoing litigation serves as a potent reminder of the need for vigilance and advocacy in upholding labor standards and safeguarding workers' rights.

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

The Huntley Hotel Faces Lawsuit Over Alleged California Labor Law Violations

The Huntley Hotel is embroiled in a class action lawsuit alleging that the company failed to adhere to California's strict labor codes, particularly concerning overtime wages and rest breaks. This legal challenge spotlights the ongoing issues within the hospitality industry regarding employee rights and compensation.

The Case: Jason Marello v. Second Street Corporation, dba The Huntley Hotel

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

The Case No.: 24STCV16122

The Plaintiff: Jason Marello v. Second Street Corporation, dba The Huntley Hotel

The plaintiff in the case, Jason Marello, filed on behalf of employees of The Huntley Hotel, alleging that the hotel has consistently failed to provide legally required meal and rest breaks. According to their claims, the hotel's rigorous scheduling and understaffing have frequently forced them to work through breaks and extend their shifts without appropriate compensation. The plaintiffs argue that these practices violate California Labor Code provisions regarding minimum wages, overtime pay, and rest periods and also impact their well-being and productivity.

The Defendant: Jason Marello v. Second Street Corporation, dba The Huntley Hotel

The defendant in the case, Second Street Corporation, dba The Huntley Hotel, operated by Second Street Corporation, is a well-known entity in the Los Angeles hospitality sector. It is accused of multiple breaches of California employment law, including failure to provide mandatory meal and rest breaks, pay wages on time, and properly compensate for overtime. These allegations paint a picture of a workplace that potentially prioritizes operational needs over statutory labor rights.

Case History: Jason Marello v. Second Street Corporation, dba The Huntley Hotel

The case, Jason Marello v. Second Street Corporation, dba The Huntley Hotel, was filed in the Los Angeles County Superior Court and highlights a critical examination of labor practices at The Huntley Hotel. The legal proceedings aim to address the alleged systematic denial of lawful rest periods and proper wages to hotel employees, underlining significant concerns about compliance with state labor regulations. The case continues to unfold, with both sides presenting their arguments.

The Case: Jason Marello v. Second Street Corporation, dba The Huntley Hotel

Jason Marello v. Second Street Corporation, dba The Huntley Hotel, is an ongoing lawsuit against The Huntley Hotel pivotal for workers across California, particularly in the hospitality industry. It underscores employers' need to comply strictly with California overtime laws and rest break requirements. This case serves as a crucial reminder of employers' legal obligations towards their employees and the serious repercussions of violating these labor laws. It also emphasizes the role of judicial oversight in ensuring that employment practices within the state remain fair and lawful, providing a safer and more equitable working environment for all Californians.

If you have questions about filing an overtime or 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 Driftwood Hospitality Allegedly Failed to Provide Workers with Meal and Rest Breaks

In a significant case highlighting issues within California's hospitality sector, Driftwood Hospitality Management has been accused of violating multiple provisions of California labor law, including the failure to provide mandatory meal and rest breaks to its employees.

The Case: Matthew Shachno and Ivan Martinez v. 8757 MV Payroll, LLC

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

The Case No.: 37-2024-00029491-CU-OE-CTL

The Plaintiffs: Matthew Shachno and Ivan Martinez v. 8757 MV Payroll, LLC

The lawsuit alleges that employees at Driftwood Hospitality frequently could not take required off-duty meal breaks due to work demands. Employees claim they were often called upon during their breaks to perform tasks, violating California's strict labor laws that mandate uninterrupted meal and rest periods for employees working over five hours.

The Defendant: Matthew Shachno and Ivan Martinez v. 8757 MV Payroll, LLC

Driftwood Hospitality Management, a well-known entity in the hospitality industry, is accused of systematic labor violations across its operations. The allegations include:

1. Not paying minimum wages and overtime

2. Failing to provide meal and rest breaks as required by law

3. Not reimbursing necessary business expenses

4. Other wage-related infringements

Case History: Matthew Shachno and Ivan Martinez v. 8757 MV Payroll, LLC

This class action, filed in the San Diego County Superior Court, represents a broader challenge against the hospitality management company's practices. The lawsuit details a pattern of behavior by Driftwood Hospitality that reportedly compels employees to forfeit legally entitled breaks and wages under the company's stringent work policies.

The Case: Matthew Shachno and Ivan Martinez v. 8757 MV Payroll, LLC

This case underscores a critical concern for Californian workers, particularly in the hospitality industry, regarding enforcing labor laws designed to protect employee rights. It highlights the ongoing need for vigilance and legal accountability to ensure workers are compensated fairly for all hours worked and granted their lawful breaks. The outcome of this lawsuit could have significant implications for labor practices in hospitality and beyond, reinforcing the importance of adhering to California employment law and potentially setting a precedent for similar cases.

If you have questions about filing a California wage and hour lawsuit, please contact 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.

California Supreme Court Rules on Wage Statement Penalties: Implications for Employers

The California Supreme Court's recent decision in Naranjo v. Spectrum Security Services, Inc. marks a significant development in California employment law, particularly concerning wage statement compliance under Labor Code section 226. This ruling has profound implications for how penalties are assessed for wage-statement violations, especially when employers act based on reasonable, good-faith beliefs.

The Case: Naranjo v. Spectrum Security Services, Inc.

The Court: California Supreme Court

The Case: S279397

The Plaintiff: Naranjo v. Spectrum Security Services, Inc.

The plaintiff in the case, Gustavo Naranjo, worked as a security guard employed by Spectrum Security Services. Naranjo initiated a class action lawsuit alleging the company's failure to accurately report premium pay for missed meal breaks on wage statements. This case arose after an earlier ruling which clarified employers' obligations to list such premiums, leading to significant legal questions about intentional compliance failures.

The Defendant: Naranjo v. Spectrum Security Services, Inc.

The defendant in the case, Spectrum Security Services, claims they were faced with unclear legal standards at the time and allegedly believed in good faith that their wage statements were compliant with existing laws. This belief was based on the ambiguous legal environment before the Supreme Court's clarification, which left many employers uncertain about their reporting requirements.

Case History: Naranjo v. Spectrum Security Services, Inc.

After multiple rounds in the legal system, including an initial Supreme Court clarification in 2022 and a subsequent appeal, the case hinged on whether Spectrum's actions constituted a "knowing and intentional" violation of section 226. The Court of Appeal found that Spectrum's reasonable good-faith misunderstanding precluded such a finding. The Supreme Court affirmed this perspective, significantly influencing how penalties for wage-statement inaccuracies are judged.

The Case: Naranjo v. Spectrum Security Services, Inc.

This decision underscores a pivotal shift in California overtime lawsuit assessments, particularly for cases involving wage statement accuracy under California employment law. Employers can now defend against penalties for wage-statement violations if they demonstrate a reasonable and good-faith belief in their compliance, even if that belief is later shown to be incorrect. This ruling not only protects employers in cases of genuine legal uncertainty but also emphasizes the need for them to stay informed and cautious about compliance in areas where the law is well-established. For California workers, this development stresses the importance of understanding their rights and the conditions under which employers might be excused from penalties, shaping how violations of California overtime law are addressed moving forward. On May 6, 2024, the California Supreme Court ruled that employers are not liable for statutory penalties if they provide inaccurate or incomplete wage statements in good faith and with reasonable belief that the statements are accurate.

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

A Critical Analysis of the Uber and Lyft Overtime Lawsuit

In a landmark decision that has stirred the legal landscape of California employment law, the California Supreme Court recently cited Proposition 22 when they ruled that rideshare drivers for companies like Uber and Lyft can legally be classified as independent contractors. The California Supreme Court ruling reaffirms the gig economy's business model in California, emphasizing the constitutional validity of the recently approved state ballot measure.

The Case: Castellanos v. State of California

The Court: Supreme Court of California

The Case No.: 3:19-cv-06462-JCS

The Plaintiff: Castellanos v. State of California

The plaintiffs in the case were rideshare drivers supported by various labor groups, who challenged the classification of drivers. They argued that classifying rideshare app drivers as independent contractors deprived them of critical labor protections provided by California employment law, including minimum wage, overtime compensation, and other benefits.

The Defendant: Castellanos v. State of California

The defendants, prominent rideshare companies Uber and Lyft (along with food delivery service DoorDash), defended their model by supporting Proposition 22. They argued that the proposition provides flexibility for drivers to operate as independent contractors, thus allowing them the freedom to decide when and how they work. The companies maintained that this setup benefits both the drivers for its flexibility and the companies for maintaining a cost-effective operational model.

History of the Case: Castellanos v. State of California

This legal battle reached the California Supreme Court after a three-year contest in lower courts, including a 2021 decision by a state Superior Court judge that deemed Proposition 22 "unenforceable" and a reversal by the state Appeals Court in 2023. The Supreme Court's ruling not only overturned previous lower court decisions but also marked a significant victory for the gig economy, solidifying drivers' employment status as independent contractors under state law.

The Case: Castellanos v. State of California

The Supreme Court's decision is pivotal for workers across California, particularly those in the gig economy. It underlines the ongoing tension between evolving business models and traditional employment protections. While the ruling secures the status quo for rideshare companies, it also highlights the need for continuous dialogue and potential legislative adjustments to ensure fair treatment and adequate protections for all workers in the state. The case serves as a crucial precedent in understanding and navigating the complexities of violating California overtime laws and the broader implications of labor classification in California's dynamic labor market.

If you have questions about filing a California misclassification 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.

Amazon Workers Receive Payout to Resolve Overtime Lawsuit

Recently, Amazon.com Services reached a settlement agreement to resolve a lawsuit alleging violations of overtime regulations.

The Case: Leilani Kryzhanovskiy and Patricia Salazar v. Amazon.com Services

The Court: U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California

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

The Plaintiffs: Leilani Kryzhanovskiy and Patricia Salazar v. Amazon.com Services

The plaintiffs in the case, Leilani Kryzhanovskiy, and Patricia Salazar, filed a class action overtime lawsuit. The lawsuit claimed that Amazon workers did not receive overtime pay between 2017 and 2023. The plaintiffs filed suit on behalf of anyone who worked at Amazon during the past six years and received a sign-on bonus in the same week they worked overtime. According to the plaintiffs, Amazon violated California Labor Law by underpaying overtime wages earned during the same week a sign-on bonus was issued. The overtime pay was allegedly calculated at the regular rate of pay when they should have considered the bonus payment when determining the “regular rate of pay.”

The Defendant: Leilani Kryzhanovskiy and Patricia Salazar v. Amazon.com Services

The defendants in the case, Amazon.com Services, are paying up in response to the class action overtime lawsuit. To settle the complaints, Amazon.com Services agreed to pay Amazon workers in the class over $500. While Amazon agreed to settle, it also denied the allegations of wrongdoing. Amazon.com Services has committed to a $3M payout for class members.

The Case: Leilani Kryzhanovskiy and Patricia Salazar v. Amazon.com Services

The Leilani Kryzhanovskiy and Patricia Salazar v. Amazon.com Services case resulted in a settlement agreement. Amazon workers can easily determine if they are eligible for a portion of the settlement. The criteria are: 1. Current or former Amazon employee; 2. Located in California; 3. Employed between July 22, 2017, and November 7, 2023; and 4. Received a sign-on bonus and worked overtime the same week.

If you have questions about filing a California overtime 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.

Parents of the 12 Year Old Killed While Paddleboarding File a Wrongful Death Lawsuit

Almost a year after the death of their 12-year-old daughter during an incident in Mission Bay's De Anza Cove, Ashley and Mark Peterson filed a wrongful death lawsuit.

The Case: Ashley and Mark Peterson v. City of San Diego, County of San Diego, State of California, OfferUp, Theresa Miranda De Vara, Leal Serafin, Isaac Shaker, Arsanyous R. Ghaly, Peter Youssef, Does 1-100 inclusive

The Court: Superior Court of California, County of San Diego - Central Division

The Case No.:

The Plaintiffs: Parents File Wrongful Death Lawsuit After Their 12-Year-Old's Death

The plaintiffs in the case are Ashley and Mark Peterson, the parents of a 12-year-old who was killed while paddle boarding in Mission Bay's De Anza Cove in July 2023. 12-year-old Savannah was hit by 19-year-old Arsanyous Ghaly, who was riding a Jet Ski.

Multiple Defendants Listed in the Wrongful Death Lawsuit:

The defendants in the case include the man driving the Jet Ski that ran over the child, Ghaly, who was accused of Savannah's death in a criminal case and faces a charge of vehicular manslaughter with gross negligence. Ghaly, a resident of Bellflower in Los Angeles County, was arrested in November 2023. Ghaly is accused of going 10x the speed limit (approx. 50 mph in a 5 mph zone) when he hit the child paddleboarding. Ghaly plead not guilty and denied all charges during his informational arraignment. In addition to Ghaly, Savannah's parents named nine other defendants:

• two other Jet Ski riders

• two owners of the Jet Ski

• the city, the county, the state, and the San Diego Unified Port District

• OfferUp (the app allegedly used to rent the Jet Skis)

According to the California Wrongful Death lawsuit, just eight minutes before the deadly incident, the group of three Jet Ski riders were pulled over by a San Diego lifeguard for excessive speed and reckless operation. The suit also indicates that Ghaly and the two other riders were not provided proper training on safe Jet Ski operation and did not have California Boater's Cards.

The Case: Petersons v. City of San Diego, et al

In the complaint for wrongful death and survival, the plaintiffs make several claims:

• Dangerous condition of public property

• Violations of the California Harbors and Navigation Code

• Negligence per se

• Gross Negligence

• Negligence

• Loss of Companionship

The plaintiffs seek a jury trial.

If you have questions about filing a California wrongful death lawsuit, don't hesitate to contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Discuss your situation today with one of the experienced wrongful death attorneys in our various law firm offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.