Local Nursing Home Faces Wrongful Death Lawsuit After the Death of a Santa Clara Matriarch

A local Santa Clara nursing home faces a wrongful death lawsuit after one of their residents died following an incident the deceased's surviving family claims violated health and safety codes.

The Case: Adam Plares, Sr. v. Covenant Care California, LLC, DBA Mission Skilled Nursing & Sub-Acute Center, Covenant Care Mission, Inc., Suncrest Hospice San Jose LLC, DBA Suncrest Hospice, and Does 1 through 60 inclusive

The Court: California County of Santa Clara Superior Court

The Case No.: 24CV440133

The Plaintiffs: Plares, Sr. v. Covenant Care California

The wrongful death lawsuit followed the death of Vera Plares, a 98-year-old resident of Santa Clara's Mission Skilled Nursing & Subacute Center. In December of 2023, Vera Plares' 78-year-old roommate, Connie Delucca, bludgeoned her with a cane repeatedly while she was lying on her bed. The plaintiffs in the case, the Plares family, filed a complaint seeking wrongful death and survival damages, claiming wrongful death, elder abuse, Violation of the Health & Safety Code, and Survival Action. The plaintiff demands a jury trial. Vera Plares' family claims the nursing home is liable and is suing the facility, claiming the Mission Skilled employees willingly and knowingly put Vera Plares in danger when they assigned Delucca, a fellow resident with a documented history of violence and aggression towards fellow patients, as her roommate.

The Defendants: Plares, Sr. v. Covenant Care California

When the Plares family decided the matriarch of their family would benefit from assisted living, the family hand-picked Mission. When they did so, they never suspected that their "Grandma Vera" would be brutally attacked and murdered by her assisted living roommate, Delucca. According to the plaintiffs in the case, Mission and Suncrest were aware of Delucca's documented history of violence and aggression towards fellow residents (including multiple 5150 holds) when they made the room assignment. Additionally, Delucca was decades younger than the elderly Plares matriarch, making her significantly more agile and mobile. Before long, Delucca's violence turned toward her roommate. The attack was allegedly brutal, went unnoticed for hours, and was left untreated for 20 hours. Plares died within 48 hours of the incident.

More About the Wrongful Death Case: Plares, Sr. v. Covenant Care California

According to the complaint, the Plares family seeks an undisclosed amount in damages for wrongful death, violation of patient rights, and elder abuse. The plaintiffs also allege that Mission Skilled and its employees violated California health and safety laws by failing to provide urgent medical care. According to court documents, employees discovered Plares three hours after the attack and noticed severe bruising on her arms, neck, face, and hands. They also noticed her tooth was chipped, and blood was dripping from her mouth. Plares' blood was found on Delucca's cane.

A Timeline: Plares Didn't Receive Treatment Until 20 Hours After the Brutal Attack

Plares was in the hospice wing of the facility to receive treatment for a persistent bedsore; she was not receiving end-of-life care.

• 6 pm: when a nurse gave Plares her medication, she was fine.

• 8:30 pm: an employee reportedly checked the room but didn't check on Plares because her curtain was closed.

• 9:00 pm: an employee reportedly checked the room but didn't check on Plares because her curtain was closed.

• 9:30 pm: a different nurse checked the room, noted Plares' curtain was closed, and discovered she had been brutally attacked and suffered serious injuries.

• 11 pm: the nursing home contacted Plares' daughter-in-law, Evelyn Plares, requesting permission to take her to the hospital.

• 1 am: Someone from Suncrest (another related entity) called Evelyn to tell her they decided not to send Vera to the hospital based on "hospice protocol."

• The next morning: Evelyn met Vera's niece, Melanie Plares, at the nursing home. Melanie questioned the staff but claimed she only got non-answers. A hospice nurse at the facility stated that the decision was based on hospice protocol by a hospice nurse and Dr. Wang, the hospice doctor. (Dr. Wang did not physically go into the facility to examine Vera after the beating; any decision he was involved in was made based on relayed information). Melanie informed the staff that Vera was not on end-of-life care and insisted she be taken off hospice and sent to Valley Medical Center for appropriate care. She asked a social worker about the police report and requested the case number. He responded that he wasn't sure he was allowed to give it to her when, in fact, there was no police report.

• Around 3 pm: Vera Plares's family made a police report and called an ambulance.

• 4 pm: Paramedics took Plares to the hospital (20 hours after she was attacked).

• Vera Plares died the next day. The Plares family claims that the Defendants owed Vera Plares a duty of care and breached their duty when they failed to take appropriate action following the attack.

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.

Trial Date Scheduled for Protestor Ashli Babbitt’s Wrongful Death Lawsuit

A federal judge assigned a trial date for the wrongful death complaint filed by the surviving family of Ashli Babbitt, the protestor who died after being shot by a U.S. Capitol Police officer.

The Case: Estate of Ashli Babbitt and Aaron Babbitt (the Plaintiffs) v. United States of America

The Court: U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California

The Case No.: 3:24-cv-33-BAS-DDL

The Plaintiff: Babbitt (the Plaintiffs) v. United States of America

On January 5, 2024, the plaintiffs filed a California wrongful death lawsuit, including the following complaints: assault and battery, negligence, negligent supervision, discipline and retention, negligent training, survival, and wrongful death. A federal judge scheduled a trial date for a wrongful death lawsuit brought by the family of January 6 protester Ashli Babbitt.

The plaintiffs in the case are the surviving family of Ashli Babbitt, a Jan. 6th protestor who died after being shot by U.S. Capitol Police Officer Michael Byrd. The $30 million wrongful death lawsuit was originally filed in California, the home of the deceased, Ashli Babbitt, 35. Ashli Babbitt owned and operated a local pool business with her husband. She attended the “Women for America First” rally featuring Trump at the Ellipse, traveling alone from San Diego to Washington, D.C.

The Incident: Crowd of Protestors Forcing Entry to the Speaker’s Lobby

The incident that led to Babbitt’s death was an outgrowth of the Capitol riot on January 6, 2021, when Trump supporters threatened to stop the certification of the Electoral College vote making Biden president. Ashli Babbitt was a member of the group of protectors trying to force entry to the Speaker’s Lobby behind the House chamber. As Ashli was edged through the window in a doorway by the crowd, Officer Byrd opened fire. The shot was fatal. Babbitt was unarmed and allegedly held her hands up as she passed through the doorway to the hallway. However, her actions did not stop the shooting.

The Case: Babbitt (the Plaintiffs) v. United States of America

According to the lawsuit, Lt. Byrd later confessed he shot Ashli before he saw her hands, assessed her intentions, or identified her gender. The complaint claims that Ashli was unarmed, with her hands in the air in plain view of Lt. Byrd and other police officers nearby. The lawsuit also indicates that Lt. Byrd was not in uniform, did not identify himself as an officer (or make his presence known to Ashli Babbitt), and did not provide any warnings or commands to Ashli before shooting her. The government investigated Byrd’s response to the situation, and he was not punished. U.S. District Court Judge Ana C. Reyes scheduled a trial date of July 20, 2026, for the Babbitt (the Plaintiffs) v. United States of America $30 million wrongful death lawsuit. The judge may also consider a request to move the case to California, where the Babbitt family lives.

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.

California Workers Claim Live Nation Worldwide, Inc. Violated Labor Law

A recent employment law case discusses labor law violation allegations after California workers claim Live Nation Worldwide failed to reimburse them for business expenses.

The Case: Byron Gonzales v. Live Nation Worldwide, Inc.

The Court: California Orange County Superior Court

The Case No.: 30-2024-01435581-CU-OE-CXC

The Plaintiffs: Byron Gonzales v. Live Nation Worldwide

The plaintiff in the case, Byron Gonzales, was an hourly employee eligible for labor law protections. As such, he was entitled to receive minimum wage, overtime pay, accurate, itemized wage statements, rest periods, and meal periods. Gonzales claims during his employment, the company's employees in similar circumstances allegedly required employees to use their cell phones to complete their job duties. Gonzales filed a class action lawsuit for himself and other workers in similar positions, alleging that Live Nation Worldwide, Inc. violated the California Labor Code by failing to reimburse workers for required business expenses.

Labor Code Requires Under California Labor Code 2802, California employers are required to "indemnify his or her employee for all necessary expenditures or losses incurred by the employee in direct consequence of the discharge of his or her duties…"

The Defendant: Byron Gonzales v. Live Nation Worldwide

The defendant in the case is Live Nation Worldwide. Workers at the company claim they failed to reimburse their employees for necessary business expenses (including using personal cell phones). Allegedly, this standard business practice also resulted in inaccurate and incomplete wages and wage statements. California employers are required to provide accurate, itemized wage statements. To fulfill this requirement, the statements must include 1) applicable hourly rates, 2) total hours worked, and 3) the applicable pay period in which the wages were earned (Labor Code §226(a)). According to the plaintiff, Live Nation's wage statements failed to comply with labor code requirements.

The Allegations: Included in the Class Action

• Wage Statement Violation: Live Nation allegedly did not provide employees with an accurate itemized wage statement (violating California Labor Code §226).

• Business Expense Reimbursement Violation: Live Nation allegedly failed to reimburse workers for necessary business expenses (California Labor Code 2802).

Status of the Case: Byron Gonzales v. Live Nation Worldwide

Gonzales filed the Live Nation Worldwide, Inc. class action lawsuit in California's Orange County Superior Court. The case is currently pending.

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.

Outback Contractors Face Allegations they Failed to Provide Meal and Rest Breaks (Copy)

A recently filed California wage and hour lawsuit claims that Outback Contractors failed to provide workers with meal breaks and rest periods required by labor law.

The Case: Christopher Vanderbeek v. Outback Contractors, Inc.

The Court: Tehama County Superior Court

The Case No.: 24CI-000225

The Plaintiff: Christopher Vanderbeek v. Outback Contractors

The plaintiff in the case, Christopher Vanderbeek, filed a class action complaint claiming Outback Contractors' employees has such rigorous work schedules that they couldn't take their off duty rest breaks and meal periods. Additionally, the employees were allegedly not fully relieved during their rest periods. According to the plaintiff, Vanderbeek, employees were interrupted during their off-duty meal breaks to complete job duties for the company. Allegedly, employees were required to complete their shifts without receiving the rest periods and meal breaks California employers must provide in compliance with labor law.

The Defendants: Christopher Vanderbeek v. Outback Contractors

The defendants in the case, Outback Contractors, face several violation allegations:

• Minimum Wage Pay Violations

• Overtime Wage Pay Violations

• Meal Break Violations

• Rest Period Violations

• Wage Statement Violations

• Business Expense Reimbursement Violations

• Timely Payment of Wages Violations

The Case: Christopher Vanderbeek v. Outback Contractors

According to the class action complaint, Outback Contractors’ policy allegedly caused workers to stay on-call and on duty during their “off duty” breaks and meal periods. Even though employees allegedly had to forfeit their breaks, they weren’t offered the required one hour of pay for missed breaks due to strict corporate policy and business practices at Outback Contractors. According to the California class action lawsuit, Outback Contractors’ standard policies and practices allegedly led to numerous California Labor Code violations.

If you have questions about filing a California 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 Okdak Fail to Reimburse Employees for Business Expenses?

A California worker recently filed a class action complaint alleging Okdak violated labor law.

The Case: Roberto Contreras Jimenez v. Okdak, Inc.

The Court: California's Riverside County Superior Court

The Case No.: CVRI2404524

The Plaintiff: Jimenez v. Okdak

The plaintiff, Jimenez, filed a class action complaint alleging that Okdak, Inc. violated the California Labor Code. According to the class action complaint, Okdak failed to reimburse workers for required business expenses, violating Labor Code 2802. Jimenez claimed that during his employment, he and other class members were required to use their personal cell phones to fulfill their job responsibilities.

What is California Labor Code 2802?

California Labor Code 2802 requires employers to "indemnify his or her employee for all necessary expenditures or losses incurred by the employee in direct consequence of the discharge of his or her duties..." As such, employees who must purchase items or services in order to fulfill their job duties should receive a reimbursement for the business expense from their employer.

The Defendant: Jimenez v. Okdak

According to the plaintiff, Okdak failed to accurately record employee hours and provide accurate compensation for actual hours worked. Since labor law requires employers to pay their workers for all time worked, failing to do so is a violation. "Time worked" (when referring to labor law) refers to the time during which an employee is subject to their employer's control. The plaintiff claims the employee required workers to work off the clock without pay. Since the off-the-clock hours did not qualify for overtime premium payment, the company allegedly failed to provide employees with minimum wage for their off-the-clock hours, which violates multiple California Labor Codes (§§ 1194, 1197, and 1197.1).

More About the Jimenez v. Okdak Class Action Lawsuit:

The plaintiff filed on behalf of himself and other similarly situated current and former employees. The class action is pending in California's Riverside County Superior Court.

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

Former Employee Files PAGA-Only Action Against Avis Budget Car Rental, LLC

Did Avis Budget Car Rental, LLC fail to provide workers with all the legally required rest periods and meal breaks? The plaintiff not only claims the company failed to provide breaks but also failed to provide the required one hour of compensation in place of the missed breaks.

The Case: Rodney Nelson v. Avis Budget Car Rental, LLC

The Court: Orange County Superior Court

The Case No.: 30-2023-01310016-CU-OE-CXC

The Plaintiff: Rodney Nelson v. Avis Budget Car Rental

The plaintiff in the case, Rodney Nelson, was employed by Avis Budget Car Rental from June 2022 through November 2022 and filed a lawsuit against Avis Budget Car Rental, LLC, alleging the company violated the Labor Code. According to the lawsuit, the plaintiff and other workers in similar positions were not fully relieved during legally required meal breaks. Additionally, the employees frequently had to miss their rest periods.

How Does the Court Define an Off-Duty Rest Period?

According to the California Supreme Court, an off-duty rest period is when an employee is relieved from all work and work-related duties and is free from their employer's control.

Former Employee Claims Rental Company Violated Labor Law:

The defendant in the case, Avis Budget Car Rental, owns and operates car rental agencies in California. The plaintiff claims standard business policies and practices at the rental car company led to multiple labor law violations.

Did Avis Budget Rental Car Violate Multiple Labor Laws?

The plaintiff, Nelson, claims the company violated Labor Code § 2699, et seq. and seeks penalties for the alleged violation of California Labor Codes. Filed in Orange County Superior Court, the case is currently pending.

If you have questions about how to file a California class action overtime or wage and hour lawsuit or need to discuss company policies that violate overtime law, 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 Chicago, San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Riverside, and Los Angeles, empowering you to take action.

Outback Contractors Face Allegations they Failed to Provide Meal and Rest Breaks

A recently filed California wage and hour lawsuit claims that Outback Contractors failed to provide workers with meal breaks and rest periods required by labor law.

The Case: Christopher Vanderbeek v. Outback Contractors, Inc.

The Court: Tehama County Superior Court

The Case No.: 24CI-000225

The Plaintiff: Christopher Vanderbeek v. Outback Contractors

The plaintiff in the case, Christopher Vanderbeek, filed a class action complaint claiming Outback Contractors' employees has such rigorous work schedules that they couldn't take their off duty rest breaks and meal periods. Additionally, the employees were allegedly not fully relieved during their rest periods. According to the plaintiff, Vanderbeek, employees were interrupted during their off-duty meal breaks to complete job duties for the company. Allegedly, employees were required to complete their shifts without receiving the rest periods and meal breaks California employers must provide in compliance with labor law.

The Defendants: Christopher Vanderbeek v. Outback Contractors

The defendants in the case, Outback Contractors, face several violation allegations:

• Minimum Wage Pay Violations

• Overtime Wage Pay Violations

• Meal Break Violations

• Rest Period Violations

• Wage Statement Violations

• Business Expense Reimbursement Violations

• Timely Payment of Wages Violations

The Case: Christopher Vanderbeek v. Outback Contractors

According to the class action complaint, Outback Contractors’ policy allegedly caused workers to stay on-call and on duty during their “off duty” breaks and meal periods. Even though employees allegedly had to forfeit their breaks, they weren’t offered the required one hour of pay for missed breaks due to strict corporate policy and business practices at Outback Contractors. According to the California class action lawsuit, Outback Contractors’ standard policies and practices allegedly led to numerous California Labor Code violations.

If you have questions about filing a California 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.