La Costa Limousine Facing Overtime Pay Allegations

In recent news, La Costa Limousine has been facing allegations that it failed to provide rest periods and meal breaks in compliance with California labor law.

The Case: Justin Johnson v. B.T. Transportation, Inc., dba La Costa Limousine and La Costa Limousine LTD

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

The Case No.: 24CU007652C

Justin Johnson v. La Costa Limousine: More About the Plaintiff

The plaintiff in the case, Justin Johnson, was employed in California by La Costa Limousine from April 2022 to April 2024 as a non-exempt employee paid hourly. Johnson filed a class action lawsuit claiming La Costa Limousine violated labor law. According to the plaintiff, the company failed to provide rest periods, meal breaks, and overtime pay in compliance with labor law. According to the plaintiff, the employees’ rigorous work schedules prohibited taking off-duty rest breaks and meal periods. As a result, workers were often not fully relieved of duty during their breaks.

California Law Requires Employers to Offer Non-Exempt California Employees Breaks:

California labor law requires that employees provide their employees with a rest period of at least ten (10) minutes for a shift worked of at least two (2) to four (4) hours, a first and second rest period of at least ten minutes for 6-8 hour shifts, and a first, second and third rest period of at least ten minutes for 10+ hour shifts. California employers are required to offer workers one hour of wages if a worker misses a break.

The Defendant, La Costa Limousine Faces Numerous Allegations:

The defendant in the case, La Costa Limousine, provides chauffeur services in California, including San Diego, where the plaintiff worked. The allegations include:

• Failing to pay workers minimum wage

• Failing to provide rest periods and meal breaks

• Failing to pay overtime wages

• Failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements

• Failing to provide wages when due

• Failing to reimburse required business expenses

The Case: Justin Johnson v. La Costa Limousine

The plaintiff filed the California class action in the San Diego County Superior Court; the case is pending. According to the lawsuit, the defendant violated numerous California Labor Laws.

If you have questions about filing a California wage and hour lawsuit, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw L.L.P. Experienced employment law attorneys can help you in any of their various law firm offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Did a California Oil Manufacturer Fail to Compensate their Employees?

A California worker recently filed a wage and hour lawsuit claiming an oil manufacturer violated labor law, specifically failing to provide workers with minimum wage and accurate overtime pay.

The Case: Villegas et al. v. AOCLSC Inc.

The Court: Los Angeles California Superior Court

The Case: 22STCV17702

Allegations of Minimum Wage & Overtime Pay Violations:

Plaintiffs allege that AOCLSC failed to provide minimum wages, overtime pay, and other compensation required by labor law. According to the original complaint, the defendant also allegedly failed to provide required meal breaks, rest periods, and accurate wage statements. Eligible class members were employed in California as non-exempt hourly workers between May 8, 2019, and May 15, 2023.

Defining the Non-Exempt Hourly Worker:

Non-exempt workers are protected by labor law's regulations regarding minimum wage, overtime pay, meal and rest breaks, etc. Exempt employees aren't eligible for overtime pay and are also excluded from minimum wage requirements. The most obvious difference between exempt and non-exempt workers is their method of payment. Exempt employees receive a salary, while non-exempt employees are paid hourly.

Settlement Resolves Wage and Hour Claims for Oil Manufacturer:

The defendant in the case, AOCLSC Inc., is a parent company of AOCUSA, an oil manufacturer (formerly Amalie Oil) facing allegations that they failed to pay their workers full wages. The $920,000 AOCLSC settlement resolving the wage and hour claims benefits the eligible class members (non-exempt workers employed by AOCLSC Inc. in California from May 8, 2019 to May 15, 2023).

More About the Case: Villegas et al. v. AOCLSC Inc.

The settlement in Villegas et al. v. AOCLSC Inc. also benefits a PAGE (Private Attorneys General Act) class of AOCLSC employees employed by the company in California as non-exempt hourly workers between June 1, 2021, and May 15, 2023. The amount each eligible class member receives is determined by the number of workweeks and PAGA pay periods they worked during the class period.

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

Pacific Bell Settles California Wage and Hour Class Action: $2.235M Settlement

In recent news, Pacific Bell resolved a California wage and hour class action lawsuit with a proposed $2.235 million settlement.

The Case: Macopson v. Pacific Bell Telephone Company, et al.

The Court: Los Angeles County California Superior Court

The Case No.: 22STCV13800

The Plaintiffs: Macopson v. Pacific Bell

The plaintiff in the case, Macopson, claimed Pacific Bell violated state wage laws. The class action was filed for Pacific Bell workers employed at California locations between April 26, 2018, and March 21, 2024. According to the original complaint, Pacific Bell underpaid their employees and failed to reimburse workers for necessary business expenses; both allegations allegedly violated California labor law. The plaintiffs filed claims under PAGA (California's Private Attorneys General Act). The state law enables workers to file these types of claims on behalf of other workers and California's Labor and Workforce Development Agency. Eligible class members are those who Pacific Bell employed in California between April 26, 2018, and March 21, 2024.

What is the Origin of California's PAGA?

California's Senate Bill 796 (SB 796) enacted the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) in 2004. The law was designed to reduce state labor law violations, address common unlawful and anti-competitive business practices, create the possibility for employees to collect penalties for labor law violations, and address staffing issues in state labor law enforcement.

California Telephone Company Faces Wage & Hour Violation Allegations:

The defendant in the case is Pacific Bell, a California telephone company owned by AT&T. The plaintiffs claim that Pacific Bell's business practices violated labor law. Whlle they declined to admit any wrongdoing, the company chose to resolve the claims through a settlement agreement.

Macopson v. Pacific Bell: Learn More About the Case

The terms of the $2.235 million settlement agreement designate that class members employed by the defendant between April 10, 2018, and March 21, 2014, receive the designated payment and that class members employed by the telephone company between April 10, 2021, and March 21, 2024, are eligible for the PAGA payment.

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

Amazon Settles for $3M in California Wage and Hour Class Action Lawsuit

In recent news, Amazon settled a California wage and hour class action lawsuit for $3 million.

The Case: Kryzhanovskiy et al. v. Amazon.com Services Inc., et al.

The Court: California Eastern U.S. District Court

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

The Allegations: Kryzhanovskiy et al. v. Amazon.com Services Inc., et al.

The plaintiffs in the case, Leilani Kryzhanovskiy and Patricia Salazar, filed a California class action lawsuit alleging that Amazon violated California wage and hour laws. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Amazon’s California employees who worked overtime between July 22, 2017, and November 7, 2023, during the same workweek they received a signing bonus. In the original wage and hour complaint, the plaintiffs claimed Amazon violated California labor laws when they failed to include the signing bonus to determine the regular pay rate when calculating overtime pay. As a result, the workers were allegedly underpaid for their overtime.

The Defendant: Kryzhanovskiy et al. v. Amazon.com Services Inc., et al.

The defendant in the case, Amazon.com Services Inc., et al., is a multinational tech company and the largest online retailer in the U.S. (selling many products, including books, music, movies, electronics, apparel, etc.).

The Case: Kryzhanovskiy et al. v. Amazon.com Services Inc., et al.

The California Eastern District U.S. District Court approved a $3 million settlement to resolve the overtime violation claims in September 2024. The class counsel’s $1 million attorneys’ fees were included in the settlement amount. The settlement was intended to return alleged unpaid overtime wages to eligible California workers.

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

Compass Group Wrongful Death Lawsuit Heads to Appellate Court

Compass Group USA, Inc. and plaintiffs claiming that negligence on the part of the facility and its workers led to wrongful death head to appellate court.

The Case: Soria v. Compass Grp. U.S.

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

The Case No.: B330221

The Plaintiffs: Soria v. Compass Grp. U.S.

The plaintiffs in the case, Celia Soria and Lilia Soria Trujillo, filed a wrongful death lawsuit revolving around the tragic death of Jaime Soria. The lawsuit is due to a tragedy on September 24, 2019. Jaime Soria battled spastic quadriplegic cerebral palsy since birth. In September 2019, he was admitted to Antelope Valley Hospital with severe sepsis and aspiration pneumonia. Jaime was having difficulty swallowing and was placed on an NPO food restriction (nothing by mouth). However, a food tray was accidentally delivered to Jaime's hospital room. After being told it was safe, his mother fed him food from the tray. He immediately started to cough, gag, and vomit, which was aspirated into his lungs. He died two days later, and the plaintiffs claim Soria's death was due to alleged negligence by Compass Group USA.

The Defendants: Soria v. Compass Grp. U.S.

The defendants in the case are the hospital, one of its nurses, Compass Group USA, Inc. (Compass), the food and nutrition manager (contracted with the hospital), and a Compass catering associate.

The Case: Soria v. Compass Grp. U.S.

The trial court determined certain allegations of the plaintiffs' complaint constituted binding admissions on the plaintiffs, and the jury was instructed accordingly. The trial court found the plaintiffs were not entitled to punitive damages. The jury's verdict (in favor of Celia) awarded $8 million in damages. Compass filed a JNOV (motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict). They also filed a motion for a new trial. The trial court denied the JNOV motion while granting the motion for a new trial, finding that the damage award was excessive. After the Superior Court of LA County issued orders and a judgment, both parties appealed.

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 Chicago, San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, and Riverside.

Wrongful Death Lawsuit Filed in Response to Boston Police Officer’s 2022 Death

After the recent death of a Boston Police Officer, his brother filed a wrongful death lawsuit against the officer's girlfriend and two Canton area bars.

The Case: Paul O’Keefe v. C&C Hospitality d/b/a C.F. McCarthy’s, G&S Hospitality, Waterfall Bar & Grill, and Karen Read

The Court: Plymouth Superior Court

The Case No.: 2483 CV00692

The Plaintiff: Paul O'Keefe v. C.F. McCarthy's, Waterfall Bar & Grill, and Karen Read

In January 2022, 16-year veteran Boston Police Officer John O'Keefe and his girlfriend, Karen Read, a former adjunct professor at Bentley College, went barhopping at C.F. McCarthy's and Waterfall Bar & Grill. Read dropped O'Keefe off at Brian Albert's, a fellow Boston police officer, for a party. O'Keefe was later found dead outside Albert's home. The autopsy indicated O'Keefe died of blunt force trauma and hypothermia. Prosecutors claim Read hit him with her SUV and then left the scene. Read's legal counsel claims O'Keefe was actually killed inside the home and then dragged outside. They argued that police investigators focused on Read because doing so allowed them to avoid considering other law enforcement officers as suspects. O'Keefe's brother filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Read, the girlfriend, and two Canton, Massachusetts bars O'Keefe visited before going to the party at Albert's.

The Defendants: Paul O’Keefe v. C&C Hospitality d/b/a C.F. McCarthy’s, G&S Hospitality, Waterfall Bar & Grill, and Karen Read

The defendants in the case are O'Keef's girlfriend, Karen Read, who dropped him off at his fellow officer's home after they went out drinking at two local Canton bars (and allegedly hit him with her vehicle before leaving), and two Canton, Massachusetts bars: C.F. McCarthy's and Waterfall Bar & Grill. Read claims she did not harm O'Keefe. O'Keefe's family members allege the bars served alcoholic beverages to a visibly intoxicated person. C.F. McCarthy's denies their involvement in the death of O'Keefe.

The Case: Paul O’Keefe v. C&C Hospitality d/b/a C.F. McCarthy’s, G&S Hospitality, Waterfall Bar & Grill, and Karen Read

O'Keefe filed the wrongful death lawsuit in August 2024 in Plymouth Superior Court. In addition to wrongful death, O'Keefe alleges negligent infliction of emotional distress.

If you have questions about filing a California wrongful death suit, reach out to Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw L.L.P. Experienced wrongful death attorneys are available at various law firm offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago to assist you.

Private California University Faces Labor Law Violation Allegations

A recent wage and hour case in LA County questions whether one of the local private colleges violated labor law. A former employee's class action alleges multiple violations.

The Case: Rosangela Torres v. Cogswell College, LLC

The Court: California's Los Angeles County Superior Court

The Case No.: 22STCV00409

The Plaintiffs: Rosangela Torres v. Cogswell College, LLC

The plaintiff in the case, Rosangela Torres, worked at the university from March 2022 through May 2023. During her employment, she claims that Cogswell College/University of Silicon Valley's employees had to face rigorous work schedules that prevented them from being fully relieved during their off-duty meal breaks and rest periods. Allegedly, employees at the university were required to work without receiving legally required meal breaks and rest periods. Additionally, the plaintiff claims the employer did not provide the specified compensation for missed breaks as required by labor law.

California Labor Law Rest Period Requirements: What Should Employees Expect?

California employers must provide their workers with a ten-minute rest period for a 2-4 hour shift. Employers must provide are required to provide workers with two rest periods (of at least 10 minutes) for shifts worked between six and eight hours. When employees work a shift of more than 10 hours, employers must provide them with three rest breaks (of at least 10 minutes). When California employees don't receive their rest breaks, labor law requires employers to compensate them with one hour of pay.

The Defendant: Cogswell College, LLC

The defendant in the case, Cogswell College, LLC, is also called the University of Silicon Valley. Torres, a former employee, alleges that the university's standard business practices violate labor law.

The Allegations: Included in the Class Action

• Failing to provide employees with off-duty rest periods and meal breaks

• Failing to pay minimum wages

• Failing to pay overtime wages

• Failing to reimburse for required business expenses

• Failing to provide wages when due

• Failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements

The Case: Rosangela Torres v. Cogswell College, LLC

The plaintiff claims that employees were subjected to numerous wage and hour violations due to overburdened work requirements and inadequate staffing at the university. The case is currently pending in LA County Superior Court.

If you have questions about filing a California class action lawsuit, please 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 Francisco, San Diego, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.