Joe’s Pizza on Sunset Faced Overtime Pay and Minimum Wage Violation Allegations

California pizza delivery driver sues for overtime and minimum wage pay violations and wins but ends up seeking an appeal when the trial court denies the attorney fees and costs request.

The Case: Gramajo v. Joe's Pizza on Sunset, Inc.

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

The Case: 03-25-2024

The Plaintiff: Gramajo v. Joe's Pizza on Sunset, Inc.

The plaintiff in the case, Gramajo, worked as a pizza delivery driver for Joe's Pizza from February 2014 to June 2015. In February 2018, Gramajo sued Joe's Pizza for failure to pay minimum and overtime wages, citing multiple California Labor Code violations.

The Defendant: Gramajo v. Joe's Pizza on Sunset, Inc.

The defendant in the case, Joe's Pizza on Sunset, Inc., faced numerous employment law violation allegations in the case including:

• Failure to pay minimum and overtime wages (Lab. Code, §§ 510, 558, 1194)

• Failure to provide rest and meal periods (Lab. Code, §§ 512, 226.7)

• Failure to pay wages due (upon termination) (Lab. Code, §§ 201, 202, 203)

• Failure to reimburse for business expenses (Lab. Code, § 2802)

• Unfair business practices (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200).

The Case: Gramajo v. Joe's Pizza on Sunset, Inc.

The trial for Gramajo v. Joe's Pizza on Sunset, Inc. was set after close to four years of litigation and discovery, with Gramajo seeking $26,159.33 in unpaid minimum and overtime wages, missed meal and rest breaks, waiting time penalties, and unreimbursed expenses. After completing a seven-day trial, the jury found in favor of Gramajo on both the minimum wage and overtime causes of action and awarded Gramajo $2.17 in unpaid minimum wages and $3,340 in unpaid overtime wages. In total, Gramajo recovered:

• $7,659.63 (of unpaid minimum and overtime wages)

• $2,115.59 in statutory interest

• $2,100 in waiting time penalties (at a daily wage rate of $70 per day for thirty days according to Labor Code section 203)

• $2.17 in liquidated damages

• $100 in statutory penalties

Following the verdict, Gramajo moved for attorney fees totaling $296,920 and $26,932.84 in costs. The trial court denied Gramajo's fee request, granting Joe's Pizza's motion to tax costs, ultimately awarding Gramajo nothing, claiming the plaintiff acted in bad faith by inflating his damages figure, including claims he had no intention to pursue to justify the filing of an unlimited civil proceeding. The trial court also argued that the case was severely over-litigated.

Seeking Attorney Fees and Costs On Appeal: Gramajo v. Joe's Pizza on Sunset, Inc.

On appeal, the plaintiff argued the law entitled him to reasonable litigation costs (Labor Code section 1194, subdivision (a)) and that the trial court abused its discretion when turning to Code of Civil Procedure section 1033, subdivision (a), to support their denial of his litigation costs. The appeals court found the plaintiff was entitled to an award of reasonable litigation costs (Labor Code section 1194, subdivision (a)), and denying all costs by relying on Code of Civil Procedure section 1033, subdivision (a) was in error. The order denying the plaintiff's motion for attorney fees and costs and granting the defendant's motion to tax costs was reversed and remanded to the trial court. The trial court will determine a "reasonable" attorney fee and costs award for the plaintiff. The appellate court did not express an opinion on the reasonableness of the plaintiff's attorney fees and costs requests or whether or not the case should have been filed in limited jurisdiction.

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

Disney Drops is Outrageous Attempt to Keep a Wrongful Death Lawsuit Out of Court

A widower suing Walt Disney Parks and Resorts for the wrongful death of his wife faced an outlandish legal hurdle. Disney initially attempted to get the wrongful death lawsuit thrown out of court and sent to arbitration based on the fine print in a Disney+ subscription the man agreed to years before the incident.

The Case: Jeffrey J. Piccolo v. Great Irish Pubs Florida Inc., dba Raglan Road Irish Pub and Walt Disney Parks and Resorts, a Florida Corporation dba Disney Springs

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

The Case No.: 2:24-cv-04685

The Plaintiffs: Piccolo v. Great Irish Pubs

The plaintiff in the case, Jeffrey Piccolo, went to dinner with his wife and mother-in-law at Great Irish Pubs in October 2023. The restaurant was a part of Disney Springs, a Walt Disney World resort in Florida. The group chose the restaurant due to claims they could provide allergen-free food as Piccolo's wife had severe food allergies. The group repeatedly advised their server of the allergies and repeatedly confirmed the food she received was allergen-free. However, within hours, she passed away from an allergic reaction. Jeffrey Piccolo, the husband of deceased Kanokporn Tangsuan, filed a wrongful death lawsuit.

The Defendants: Piccolo v. Great Irish Pubs

Disney's initial response was to attempt to get the wrongful death lawsuit thrown out because Piccolo signed up for a one-month free trial of the Disney+ streaming service in 2019, and the trial requires users to arbitrate all disputes with the company. Additionally, the defendant's counsel argued that since Piccolo used the Disney Parks' website to purchase Epcot Center tickets, the company was shielded from a lawsuit from the estate of his deceased wife, who passed away due to a severe allergic reaction after eating what was supposed to be an allergen-free meal at a Disney owned, Florida restaurant.

The Case: Piccolo v. Great Irish Pubs

According to Disney's argument, anyone who signed up for a Disney+ streaming service free trial would lose their right to a jury trial with any Disney affiliate or subsidiary, which the plaintiff's counsel argued was outrageously unreasonable and grossly unfair. Following a swift and intense backlash when the situation became public, Disney filed a notice in Orange County court to withdraw the motion to dismiss the wrongful death lawsuit on the grounds that the victim's family once signed up for a free trial of Disney's streaming service years before the incident resulting in Tangsuan's death. Piccolo, the widower, seeks:

• Damages in excess of $50,000

• Damages for mental pain and suffering, loss of companionship and protection

• Loss of income

• Medical expenses and funeral expenses

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.

Do California Labor Code Minimum Wage & Overtime Provisions Apply to Work Programs?

In a recent California Wage and Hour case, the court considered whether or not California’s Labor Code minimum wage and overtime provisions apply to specific inmates in county jail work programs.

The Case: Ruelas v. Cnty. of Alameda

The Court: Supreme Court of California

The Case No.:S277120

The Plaintiffs: Ruelas v. Cnty. of Alameda

The plaintiffs in the case are non-convicted individuals who were detained at the Santa Rita Jail in Alameda County, California. While detained at the Santa Rita Jail, the plaintiffs were assigned to prepare meals for the jail’s general population and staff in the jail’s kitchen under an agreement between Aramark, a private contractor, and the County of Alameda. The plaintiffs were not paid for their work and filed an employment law complaint citing minimum wage and overtime violations.

The Allegations: Employment Law Protections

A minimum wage violation occurs when an employer pays an employee at a pay rate lower than the minimum wage rate required by federal, state, or local law. The minimum wage is determined at the federal level by the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) in the U.S., but states and local governments can set higher minimum wage rates. Employers are required to provide the highest applicable minimum wage, whether federal, state, or local. Minimum wage violations can result in legal penalties, including the payment of back wages, damages to the affected employees, fines, and sometimes criminal charges against the employer.

An overtime violation occurs when an employer does not properly compensate eligible employees for hours worked beyond the standard workweek limits defined by law. In the U.S., the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) is the federal law governing overtime pay rates, although some states have their own overtime laws that may offer greater protections. Under the FLSA, overtime pay is required for eligible employees (non-exempt workers) at a rate of one and one-half times their regular pay rate for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek.

The Defendant: Ruelas v. Cnty. of Alameda

The plaintiffs filed an employment law complaint against the county and private contractor Aramark Correctional Services, LLC. The defendants argue that the law grants discretion to the Board of Supervisors regarding whether to pay wages.

The Case: Ruelas v. Cnty. of Alameda

Initially, the Federal District Court granted in part and denied in part, the defendant’s motion to dismiss, arguing that the Penal Code addresses issues of employment and wages for state prisoners but that it does not address the same issues for non-convicted detainees awaiting trial in county jails. At the same time, the court also agreed with the Defendants’ argument that government entities are exempt from state overtime laws and dismissed the plaintiff’s claim for overtime pay. After the district court certified the question for interlocutory appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit asked the California Supreme Court to decide the issue: do non-convicted incarcerated individuals working for a private company while in a county jail have a legal claim for minimum wage and overtime pay under California law?

Do Non-Convicted Incarcerated Individuals Have a Legal Claim for Minimum Wage & Overtime Pay?

Ruelas v. Cnty. of Alameda is pending before the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, but the federal court asked the California Supreme Court to address the state law question first. To determine their finding on the issue, the court considered the interplay among the Penal Code, the California Labor Code, and the constitutional provisions governing public-private inmate labor contracts. The Supreme Court of California concluded that non-convicted incarcerated individuals working for a for-profit company while in county jails do not have a claim for minimum wages and overtime pay under California Labor Code Section 1194 (even in the absence of a local ordinance prescribing or prohibiting the payment of wages for these individuals).

If you have questions about filing a California wage and hour or overtime 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.

Historic $35.8M Wage Recovery Judgment in Pennsylvania for Healthcare Workers

In recent news, the U.S. District Court of Pennsylvania Western District awarded $35.8 million in back wages and damages to 6,000 current and former healthcare workers.

The Case: U.S. Department of Labor vs. Samuel Halper and CHMS Group

The Court: U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania

The Case No.: 2:18-cv-1608

The Allegations: U.S. Department of Labor vs. Samuel Halper and CHMS Group

The action was initiated following an extensive Department of Labor investigation that uncovered systemic FLSA violations at 15 western Pennsylvania nursing, rehabilitation, and assisted living facilities. The federal investigation revealed that the facilities that engaged in the alleged violations were under the management of Samuel Halper and his payroll office, CHMS Group. The Defendant allegedly failed to pay their employees for all hours worked (including during meal breaks) and did not correctly calculate overtime pay.

The Defendant: U.S. Department of Labor vs. Samuel Halper and CHMS Group

The defendants in the case, U.S. Department of Labor vs. Samuel Halper and CHMS Group, include the corporate entities of 15 healthcare facilities, their owner and CEO, Samuel Halper, and CHMS Group, the payroll administration firm. The court found that these entities willfully disregarded FLSA requirements by misclassifying workers, omitting crucial compensation elements from overtime calculations, and keeping inaccurate employment records.

The Case: U.S. Department of Labor vs. Samuel Halper and CHMS Group

The case concluded after a rigorous 13-day bench trial featuring 50 witnesses and over 600 exhibits. The legal proceedings began with a lawsuit filed by the Department of Labor in 2018 after the employers refused to rectify their violations administratively. The trial underscored the employers' deliberate non-compliance with labor laws, leading to substantial financial and operational penalties, including permanent injunctions against further violations.

A Pivotal Moment for Labor Rights Enforcement:

This case is pivotal for labor rights enforcement, particularly within the healthcare sector. It serves as a powerful reminder of employers' legal responsibilities towards their employees and the severe consequences of neglecting these duties. For workers in California and across the U.S., this ruling reinforces the protections afforded under the FLSA and demonstrates the government's commitment to ensuring fair wage practices. Additionally, it provides a crucial precedent for future cases.

If you have questions about filing a California wage and hour 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.

Parents File Wrongful Death Lawsuit After Teen's Death Following Physical Altercation at Halloween Parrty

In a heart-wrenching case that has captured the attention of the community, the parents of 16-year-old Preston Lord have filed a wrongful death lawsuit following his tragic death at a Halloween party in Queen Creek last year.

The Case: Nicholas N. Lord v. Talan A. Renner, Travis and Rebecca Renner, Treston J. Billey, William O. Hines, Jacob R. Meisner, Anthony and Wendi Meisner, Dominic Turner, Taylor R. Sherman, Talyn R. Vigil, Roberto and Emily Correa, et al.

The Court: The Superior Court of Arizona of Maricopa County

The Case No.: CV2024-018033

The Plaintiffs: Nicholas N. Lord v. Talan A. Renner

Preston Lord, a teenager whose life was cut short by violence at a social gathering, is represented by his grieving parents. They have initiated legal action not only against those directly involved in the attack but also against the homeowners where the party occurred and the parents of one of the accused. The lawsuit addresses the broader circumstances and alleged negligence contributing to Preston's untimely demise.

The Defendants: Nicholas N. Lord v. Talan A. Renner

The defendants in this complex case include several teenagers and young adults charged with murder in connection to Preston's death, alongside their parents and the homeowners, Roberto and Emily Correa. The Correas are accused of negligence for allegedly failing to supervise a large gathering at their home where alcohol was provided to minors. Additionally, the parents of Talan Renner, one of the teens charged, are accused of failing to control their son despite his known violent tendencies.

Case History: Nicholas N. Lord v. Talan A. Renner

The incident, which occurred outside a Halloween party on October 28, led to Preston's death two days later. The ensuing lawsuit filed by his parents targets multiple parties for their roles in creating the environment that allowed such a tragedy to occur. It highlights issues of parental responsibility, homeowner accountability, and the alleged failure to prevent foreseeable risks at social events aimed at teenagers.

The Case: Nicholas N. Lord v. Talan A. Renner

This lawsuit underscores a critical message about the importance of vigilance and responsibility in hosting social events, especially those involving minors. For California workers and all residents, it serves as a somber reminder of the legal responsibilities adults hold in safeguarding young individuals. The case is pivotal for seeking justice for Preston and potentially setting precedents on how similar future incidents are legally addressed, emphasizing the serious implications of negligence and the duty of care owed by parents and homeowners. This tragic case could lead to more stringent measures in supervising teen gatherings, potentially curbing the pervasive issue of teen violence in communities.

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.

Heartbreaking Tragedy at Hyatt Ziv Results in Wrongful Death Lawsuit

In a devastating incident that underscores critical issues in resort safety, a young toddler tragically lost his life after falling from a ninth-floor window at the Hyatt Ziva hotel in Puerto Vallarta, Mexico. This case has led to a wrongful death lawsuit, spotlighting the dire consequences of safety oversights in the hospitality industry.

The Case: Family of Nico Carter v. Hyatt Hotel Corp.

The Court: San Diego Federal Court

The Case No.: 23CV1838 BAS AHG

The Plaintiff: Family of Nico Carter v. Hyatt Hotel Corp.

The lawsuit is filed by the grief-stricken parents, James Carter and Anastasia Duboshina, who suffered the unbearable loss of their 23-month-old son, Nico Carter. The tragedy occurred when Nico fell through an unprotected window that was missing its pane, a safety hazard that went unnoticed until it was too late. The heartbroken parents are now seeking justice for Nico, aiming to ensure that such a preventable tragedy never recurs in any hotel or resort setting.

The Defendants: Family of Nico Carter v. Hyatt Hotel Corp.

Hyatt Hotels Corporation, the defendant in this case, is accused of negligence in failing to maintain safe premises at their Hyatt Ziva location in Puerto Vallarta. The lawsuit alleges that the hotel did not adhere to necessary safety protocols, including ensuring that all windows, particularly those on higher floors, were secure and protected to prevent such accidents.

Case History: Family of Nico Carter v. Hyatt Hotel Corp.

The incident, which took place on October 11, 2021, led to the lawsuit filed in San Diego Federal Court. It claims that Hyatt Hotels Corporation misrepresented the safety of their facilities, directly leading to Nico’s fatal accident. This case raises significant questions about enforcing safety standards and the accountability of large hospitality entities.

The Case: Family of Nico Carter v. Hyatt Hotel Corp.

This tragic case is a crucial reminder of the importance of stringent safety measures in the hospitality industry. For California workers and residents, it underscores the potential dangers in public accommodations and the need for vigilant enforcement of California employment law and safety regulations. The lawsuit seeks justice for Nico and aims to serve as a deterrent against the negligence that too often underpins such heartbreaking losses. This case is a call to action for all hotel operators to prioritize guest safety to prevent future tragedies.

If you have questions about filing a California wrongful death lawsuit, please contact 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.

Marriott Hotel Services, LLC Faces PAGA Lawsuit Over Alleged Labor Code Violations in California

Marriott Hotel Services, LLC is currently under legal scrutiny for purportedly failing to adhere to California's stringent labor laws regarding meal and rest breaks, a case that highlights the ongoing issues surrounding workplace rights in the hospitality industry.

The Case: Rodel Eugenio v. Marriott Hotel

The Court: Santa Clara County Superior Court

The Case No.: 24CV442763

The Plaintiffs: Rodel Eugenio v. Marriott Hotel

Marriott Hotel Services, LLC employees have initiated a lawsuit under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA), alleging that the company systematically denied them meal and rest breaks mandated by labor laws. Specifically, the lawsuit claims that staff members were often forced to work beyond four hours without the ten-minute rest periods legally required, impacting their health and well-being.

The Defendant: Rodel Eugenio v. Marriott Hotel

Marriott Hotel Services, LLC, a major player in the hospitality sector, is accused of violating multiple sections of the California Labor Code, including those related to timely wage payment, meal and rest breaks, and accurate wage statement provisions. This lawsuit highlights employees' challenges in environments where operational demands often overshadow regulatory compliance.

Case History: Rodel Eugenio v. Marriott Hotel

The PAGA-only action filed in the Santa Clara County Superior Court seeks to enforce California labor laws not just for the benefit of Marriott's employees but also as a broader enforcement action reflecting state labor policy. The case emphasizes the role of PAGA in allowing employees to act as private attorneys general to pursue penalties for violations that broadly affect the public interest.

The Case: Rodel Eugenio v. Marriott Hotel

This legal action against Marriott Hotel Services, LLC is crucial for California workers, particularly in the hospitality industry, as it underscores the importance of upholding state labor laws designed to protect workers' rights. The outcome of this lawsuit could reinforce the responsibilities of employers to provide legally mandated breaks and adhere to all aspects of California overtime law, ensuring that employees receive the rest and compensation they are entitled to. For the broader workforce in California, this case highlights the protective mechanisms, like PAGA, that empower employees to hold employers accountable and foster a fairer work environment statewide.

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.