Swissport Cargo Lawsuit Alleges Wage and Hour Violations

In recent news, Swissport Cargo Services, L.P. faces wage and hour violation allegations.

The Case: William Hayes, Jr. vs. Swissport Cargo Services, L.P.

The Court: Los Angeles County Superior Court

The Case No.: 24STCV31310

The Plaintiff: Hayes, Jr. vs. Swissport Cargo

The plaintiff, William Hayes, Jr. (a non-exempt hourly employee for Swissport Cargo from July 10, 2024, through August 30, 2024), filed a class action complaint alleging that Swissport Cargo Services, L.P. violated the California Labor Code.

The Defendant: Hayes, Jr. vs. Swissport Cargo

Swiss Cargo Services, L.P. provides air cargo services in California. A recent class action complaint alleges that the defendant, Swissport Cargo Services, L.P.:

• Required their employees to work "off the clock" without paying them for their time (a violation of Cal. Lab. Code §§ 1194, 1197, and 1197.1)

• Failed to pay minimum wage (a violation of Cal. Lab. Code §§ 1194, 1197, and 1197.1)

• Did not provide employees with an accurate itemized wage statement (a violation of California Labor Code § 226)

What Information Should Employers Provide on an Itemized Wage Statement?

Labor law is specific about the information that must be included in an accurate, itemized wage statement. To comply with California Labor Code Section 226(a), employers must include the following:

• All applicable hourly rates during the pay period

• Total hours worked

• Applicable pay period in which the wages were earned

According to the class action lawsuit, the wage statements Swissport Cargo Services, L.P. provided their employees did not identify the necessary information.

The Case: Hayes, Jr. vs. Swissport Cargo

According to the Hayes' complaint, off-duty meal breaks or rest periods were regularly interrupted for work, rounded employee time worked (to benefit the company), and required off-the-clock mandatory COVID-19 screening before clocking into work. The case, Hayes, Jr. vs. Swissport Cargo, is currently pending in California's Los Angeles County Superior Court.

If you have questions about filing a California 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.

Boar’s Head Faces a Wrongful Death Claim Connected to Contaminated Products

Amid a Listeria outbreak, Boar's Head faces a wrongful death claim pointing to contaminated products.

The Case: Judith Adams vs. Boar's Head

The Court: Circuit Court of the Twelfth Judicial Circuit, Sarasota County, Florida

The Case No.: 209401239

The Plaintiff: Judith Adams vs. Boar's Head

The plaintiff is Judith Adams, individually and as Personal Representative de son tort of the estate of Otis T. Adams, Jr, deceased. Otis T. Adams died after allegedly consuming Listeria-contaminated Boar's Head products. The CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) linked the Listeria outbreak to Boar's Head Deli products. Adams' surviving family members filed a wrongful death lawsuit.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has linked this Listeria outbreak, which has affected 59 people and resulted in 10 deaths, back to Boar's Head deli products.

The Defendant: Judith Adams vs. Boar's Head

The defendant, Boar's Head, was founded in 1905. The company is a premier provider of high-quality deli products and promotes its brand as using only the finest ingredients. Boar's Head Deli products include a wide range of meat and cheese products. The Adams vs. Boar's Head wrongful death lawsuit highlights the outbreak's severity and raises food safety concerns, but it isn't the only incident. The Boar's Head Listeria outbreak is linked to dozens of incidents, including at least ten deaths.

The Case: Judith Adams vs. Boar's Head

Judith Adams vs. Boar's Head quickly increased scrutiny of both production and distribution practices at Boar's Head and in the industry as a whole. At the same time, the CDC's findings connect the Listeria outbreak to multiple Boar's Head products, suggesting the company may have experienced multiple lapses in food safety protocols. The situation generated a spotlight on public health in connection to industry standards for contamination prevention and could have widespread ramifications on food safety and handling practices. The Adams family filed the Boar's Head wrongful death lawsuit in October 2024.

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

Carl’s Jr. Employees Claim the Popular Burger Joint Didn’t Pay Overtime Wages

In recent news, former Carl’s Jr. employees claim that the popular burger joint did not pay them overtime wages in compliance with labor law.

The Case: Esther Sigala vs. Sun Gir Incorporated dba Carl’s Jr.

The Court: Los Angeles County Superior Court

The Case No.: 24STCV27980

The Plaintiff: Sigala vs. Carl’s Jr.

The plaintiff, Esther Sigala, worked for the defendant at a California Carl’s Jr. location from 2006 to November 2023 as a non-exempt hourly employee. She filed the overtime class action alleging she and other employees in similar positions at the company were not fully compensated for their work due to uniform practices and policies in place at Carl’s Jr. According to Sigala, Carl’s Jr. retained (and continues to retain) wages she and other employees are due for the time they worked at the restaurant.

The Defendant: Sigala vs. Carl’s Jr.

The defendant, Sun Gir Incorporated, operates fast food franchises like Carl’s Jr. throughout California (including Los Angeles County). The class action complaint alleges the company failed to provide employees with legally compliant:

• meal breaks

• rest periods

• minimum wage

• overtime pay

• sick pay

• wage statements

• personnel files

• reimbursement for business expenses

How Are Overtime Pay Rates Determined for Eligible California Employees?

Overtime pay rates for eligible California employees are calculated using specific regulations set by the Labor Code. (California Labor Code is more protective than federal standards). For regular overtime, non-exempt employees are entitled to one and one-half times their regular pay rate for all hours worked over 8 (and up to 12) in one work day. This rate also applies for the first 8 hours an employee puts in on the seventh consecutive day working in one workweek. Employees earn double their regular pay rate for double time when they work more than 12 hours in one workday (for hours in excess of 12). Double-time rates also apply to hours over eight on the seventh consecutive day of work in one workweek. The employee’s “regular rate of pay” includes their hourly wage and other forms of remuneration like piecework earnings, commissions, etc. Expense reimbursements, gifts, discretionary bonuses, etc., are excluded from the “regular rate of pay” for overtime pay calculations.

The Case: Sigala vs. Carl’s Jr.

The plaintiff filed the case, Sigala vs. Carl’s Jr., in the Los Angeles County Superior Court where it is currently pending.

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.

Former Employee Claims HiHo Cheeseburger Failed to Provide Employees with Meal Breaks

In recent news, one of HiHo Cheeseburger’s former employers filed a lawsuit claiming the company did not provide meal breaks and rest periods required by labor law.

The Case: Cristian Duenas Achutegul vs. American Cheeseburger, LLC dba HiHo Cheeseburger

The Court: Los Angeles County Superior Court

The Case No.: 24STCV30392

The Plaintiff: Achutegul vs. HiHo Cheeseburger

The plaintiff in the case, Achutegul, is a former employee of HiHo Cheeseburger. The company employed Achutegul from November 2023 through February 2024. As a non-exempt, hourly employee, Achutegul was entitled to legally required meal breaks and rest periods, payment of minimum wage and overtime pay, etc. In November 2024, he sued, claiming the company violated multiple labor laws.

The Defendant: Achutegul vs. HiHo Cheeseburger

HiHo Cheeseburger, the defendant, owns and operates restaurants in California (including Los Angeles County). According to the complaint, the company engaged in several labor law violations, including:

• Failing to pay minimum wage

• Failing to pay overtime wages

• Failing to provide legally required meal breaks

• Failing to provide legally required rest periods

• Failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements

• Failing to pay wages when due

• Failing to reimburse employees for necessary business expenses

• Failing to provide gratuities

According to the plaintiff, HiHo Cheeseburger allegedly required workers to complete tasks before and after their scheduled shifts and during their off-duty meal breaks and rest periods. The lawsuit claims that the restaurant failed to compensate its employees for the time they spent compiling “off the clock” tasks even though they were “under their employer’s control.” As such, they failed to pay their employees the applicable “minimum wage” for all the hours they worked in a given pay period.

The Case: Achutegul vs. HiHo Cheeseburger

Achutegul vs. HiHo Cheeseburger is currently pending in the Los Angeles County Superior Court.

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

Lawsuit Alleges Mitchell Repair and Snap-On Engaged in Labor Law Violations

Mitchell Repair Information Company, LLC and Snap-On Incorporated faced labor law violation allegations in a lawsuit claiming they failed to provide their employees fair wages for all their hours worked.

The Case: Louis Carabetta vs. Mitchell Repair Information Company, LLC and Snap-On Incorporated (a.k.a. Mitchell Repair and Snap-On)

The Court: San Diego County Superior Court

The Case No.: 37-2022-00020244-CU-OE-CTL

The Plaintiff: Louis Carabetta vs. Mitchell Repair and Snap-On

The plaintiff is a former employee who filed a class action complaint claiming his former employer violated labor law.

The Defendant: Louis Carabetta vs. Mitchell Repair and Snap-On

Mitchell Repair and Snap-On, the defendants, are an American company that creates software for auto repair shops with operations throughout California (including San Diego County). According to the allegations, the defendant failed to pay employees' wages for all their time accurately worked. The lawsuit also included additional allegations:

• failure to pay minimum wage

• failure to pay overtime wages

• failure to provide meal breaks and rest periods

• failure to reimburse employees for necessary work expenses

• failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements

• failure to pay employee wages when due

Why Do California Employers Violate Labor Law?

California employers might violate labor laws for several reasons, ranging from a lack of awareness about the specifics of the state's complex and frequently changing regulations to deliberate cost-cutting measures. Sometimes, employers may misclassify employees as independent contractors or exempt from overtime to avoid paying minimum wages and overtime due. In other cases, California businesses may fail to maintain accurate records of employee hours or miscalculate their employees' overtime pay rates, which often leads to unintentional underpayment. Some businesses may even intentionally prioritize operational needs or profit margins over labor law compliance - especially in a competitive business environment. Employers can face serious financial and legal consequences regardless of why a violation occurs.

The Case: Louis Carabetta vs. Mitchell Repair and Snap-On

The Mitchell Repair and Snap-On class action lawsuit was filed in the San Diego County Superior Court of the State of California.

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

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.