Srourian Law Firm Files Class Action Lawsuit Against Altura Credit Union For Violation Of California Labor Code And Related Claims
Srourian Law Firm has filed a putative class action on behalf of former and current non-exempt workers of Altura Credit Union in Riverside Superior Court. The lawsuit includes all non-exempt workers of Altura, including but not limited to customer service representatives, loan officers, office staff, and similar non-managerial duties. The lawsuit alleges that Medmen violated various provisions of the California Labor Code, including failure to pay minimum wage, failure to pay overtime, failure to authorize meal breaks and rest breaks in accordance with California law, failure to timely pay final paychecks, failure to provide proper paystubs, and violation of California Private Attorney General Act, among several other violations.
SROURIAN LAW FIRM’S CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT
The class action lawsuit, titled Blum v. Altura Credit Union is currently pending in Riverside Superior Court Case No. RIC1902157. If you worked for any Altura location in California at any time from March 29, 2015, until the present and would like more information about this case, please call us at (310) 601-3131 or send an email to contact@slfla.com. Be sure to give your name, telephone number, and the best time to reach you, and an attorney will get back to you soon.
FREE CONSULTATION
Srourian Law Firm, with locations in Los Angeles, Westwood, Woodland Hills, and Orange County is aggressively pursuing claims against Altura, and other California banks and credit unions in Los Angeles, Hollywood, Santa Monica, Orange, Irvine, Anaheim, Santa Ana, Newport Beach, Costa Mesa, Fullerton, Tustin, Mission Viejo, San Clemente, Garden Grove, Laguna Niguel, Brea, Fountain Valley, Aliso Viejo, Yorba Linda, Westminster, Laguna Hills, Cypress, and La Habra. If you or someone you know suffered violations of the California Labor Code in relation to their employment with a bank or credit union, you may be entitled to compensation as a part of the class action lawsuit. Please contact us to speak with one of our lawyers for a free consultation.
Srourian Law Firm Negotiates $1 Million Settlement On Behalf Of Amazon Drivers
Srourian Law Firm is happy to report it successfully negotiated a $1 million settlement on behalf of a statewide group of Amazon delivery drivers claiming, among other violations, failure to compensate time spend waiting off-site to get picked up with a shuttle, in addition to failure to pay overtime for hours worked in excess of 8 hours per day and 40 hours per week. The lawsuit was not against Amazon itself, but rather, a third party company contracted to perform deliveries on behalf of Amazon.
SROURIAN LAW FIRM’S CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT
Class Members who stand to recover from this action will be notified of settlement upon approval of the settlement with the Court.
FREE CONSULTATION
Srourian Law Firm, with locations in Los Angeles, Westwood, Woodland Hills, and Orange County is aggressively pursuing claims o behalf of California delivery drivers in Los Angeles, Hollywood, Santa Monica, Orange, Irvine, Anaheim, Santa Ana, Newport Beach, Costa Mesa, Fullerton, Tustin, Mission Viejo, San Clemente, Garden Grove, Laguna Niguel, Brea, Fountain Valley, Aliso Viejo, Yorba Linda, Westminster, Laguna Hills, Cypress, and La Habra. If you or someone you know suffered violations of the California Labor Code in relation to their employment with any delivery company, you may be entitled to compensation as a part of the class action lawsuit. Please contact us to speak with one of our lawyers for a free consultation.
Srourian Law Firm Leads The Way In Getting Preliminary Approval On Near $1 Million Settlement On Behalf Of California Airport Workers
Srourian Law Firm is happy to report it successfully obtained preliminary approval on a nearly $1 million settlement on behalf of a statewide group of workers at LAX, John Wayne, and Long Beach airports claiming, among other violations, unpaid time spent parking off-site and taking a shuttle to the worksite, as well as deficient meal and rest periods.
SROURIAN LAW FIRM’S CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT
Class Members who stand to recover from this action have begun to be notified of settlement and will be paid upon final approval of the settlement with the Court.
FREE CONSULTATION
Srourian Law Firm, with locations in Los Angeles, Westwood, Woodland Hills, and Orange County is aggressively pursuing claims o behalf of California airport workers in Los Angeles, Hollywood, Santa Monica, Orange, Irvine, Anaheim, Santa Ana, Newport Beach, Costa Mesa, Fullerton, Tustin, Mission Viejo, San Clemente, Garden Grove, Laguna Niguel, Brea, Fountain Valley, Aliso Viejo, Yorba Linda, Westminster, Laguna Hills, Cypress, and La Habra. If you or someone you know suffered violations of the California Labor Code in relation to their employment with any airport, you may be entitled to compensation as a part of the class action lawsuit. Please contact us to speak with one of our lawyers for a free consultation.
Srourian Law Firm Wins Appeals, Sends Shore Hotel Class Action Lawsuit From Arbitration Back To Court
In a decisive victory for workers throughout the State of California, Srourian Law Firm obtained a favorable appellate decision from the California Court of Appeals, Fifth Division, reversing an earlier Los Angeles Superior Court decision to direct a class action lawsuit brought on behalf of former and current workers of The Shore Hotel in Santa Monica, California, to individual arbitration. The initial order meant the class representatives could not proceed on a class action basis and seek recovery on behalf of all former and current Shore Hotel workers. The Court of Appeal reversed, finding the purported arbitration agreements to be invalid and unenforceable under the law. The class action will thus proceed.
You can read the whole decision by clicking here.
SROURIAN LAW FIRM’S CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT
The class action lawsuit, titled Prado v. Shore Hotel (Sand & Sea), is currently pending in Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC600236. The class includes all non-exempt workers of Shore Hotel, including but not limited to housekeeping, bellmen, food and beverage, front desk, concierge, parking, and other similar non-managerial duties. The lawsuit alleges that Shore Hotel violated various provisions of the California Labor Code, including failure to pay minimum wage, failure to pay overtime, failure to authorize meal breaks and rest breaks in accordance with California law, failure to timely pay final paychecks, failure to provide proper paystubs, and violation of California Private Attorney General Act, among several other violations.
If you worked for Shore Hotel in California at any time from November 4, 2011, until the present and would like more information about this case, please call us at (310) 601-3131 or send an email to contact@slfla.com. Be sure to give your name, telephone number, and the best time to reach you, and an attorney will get back to you soon.
FREE CONSULTATION
Srourian Law Firm, with locations in Los Angeles, Westwood, Woodland Hills, and Orange County is aggressively pursuing claims against Shore Hotel, and other California hotels in Los Angeles, Hollywood, Santa Monica, Orange, Irvine, Anaheim, Santa Ana, Newport Beach, Costa Mesa, Fullerton, Tustin, Mission Viejo, San Clemente, Garden Grove, Laguna Niguel, Brea, Fountain Valley, Aliso Viejo, Yorba Linda, Westminster, Laguna Hills, Cypress, and La Habra. If you or someone you know suffered violations of the California Labor Code in relation to their employment with a hotel, you may be entitled to compensation as a part of the class action lawsuit. Please contact us to speak with one of our lawyers for a free consultation.
Securitas Case Expands PAGA
The Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (Labor Code section 2698 et seq.)
(“PAGA”), deputizes “aggrieved employees,” giving them the authority to enforce California
Labor Code violations in the workplace on behalf of themselves and other aggrieved employees.
In PAGA actions, the State of California is the real party in interest while the employee acts as a
private attorney general. For this reason, if an aggrieved employee succeeds in a PAGA action,
25% of any civil penalties recovered goes to the aggrieved employees, while the State of
California receives the remaining 75%.
A PAGA action is different than a traditional class action where a plaintiff must have standing to
sue – the class representative plaintiff must have suffered the injury that the class they seek to
represent also suffered. As recently explained in Huff v. Securitas Security Services USA, Inc.,
2018 S.O.S. 2555 (May 23, 2018, review denied Aug. 8, 2018), a PAGA plaintiff may sue on behalf
of all other aggrieved employees who have suffered violations of the Labor Code even if the
PAGA plaintiff did not suffer those violations.
In the Securitas case, the trial court initially found that PAGA plaintiff Huff was not a temporary services
employee and therefore had no standing to sue for the violations relating to that category of
worker. However, the Court of Appeals reasoned that the purpose of PAGA is not to recover
damages or restitution, but to deputize private citizens as private attorneys general to enforce the
Labor Code. Therefore, the Court of Appeals allowed PAGA plaintiff Huff to bring claims even
if he did not personally experience the Labor Code violations. As long as a PAGA plaintiff
personally suffered at least one of the alleged violations, the PAGA plaintiff can bring any other
claim suffered by the aggrieved employees of the same employer.
Securitas clearly expanded the scope of PAGA. In order to fully take advantage of this
opportunity, a PAGA plaintiff must make sure to meet the pleading requirements by establishing
sufficient facts and theories for their claims. If you or someone you know are being denied your
meal and rest breaks, or are suffering any other wage related issues, contact Srourian Law Firm
to speak with an attorney about your rights.
Srourian Law Firm Leads The Way In Getting Preliminary Approval On $800,000 Settlement On Behalf Of San Diego Call Center Workers
Srourian Law Firm is happy to report it successfully obtained preliminary approval on an $800,000 settlement on behalf of a group of workers at a San Diego call center claiming, among other violations, deficient meal and rest periods, and failure to pay overtime for shifts beyond 8 hours by instituting a policy of resetting the workday in the middle of the shift due to the shift going past midnight.
SROURIAN LAW FIRM’S CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT
Class Members who stand to recover from this action have begun to be notified of settlement and will be paid upon final approval of the settlement with the Court.
FREE CONSULTATION
Srourian Law Firm, with locations in Los Angeles, Westwood, Woodland Hills, and Orange County is aggressively pursuing claims on behalf of California call center workers in Los Angeles, Hollywood, Santa Monica, Orange, Irvine, Anaheim, Santa Ana, Newport Beach, Costa Mesa, Fullerton, Tustin, Mission Viejo, San Clemente, Garden Grove, Laguna Niguel, Brea, Fountain Valley, Aliso Viejo, Yorba Linda, Westminster, Laguna Hills, Cypress, and La Habra. If you or someone you know suffered violations of the California Labor Code in relation to their employment with any call center, you may be entitled to compensation as a part of the class action lawsuit. Please contact us to speak with one of our lawyers for a free consultation.
Srourian Law Firm Files Class Action Lawsuit Against MedMen For Violation Of California Labor Code And Related Claims
Srourian Law Firm has filed a putative class action on behalf of former and current non-exempt workers of MedMen in Los Angeles Superior Court. The lawsuit includes both front of house and back of house workers, including cashiers, sales, and inventory. The lawsuit alleges that Medmen violated various provisions of the California Labor Code, including failure to pay minimum wage, failure to pay overtime, failure to authorize meal breaks and rest breaks in accordance with California law, failure to timely pay final paychecks, failure to provide proper paystubs, and violation of California Private Attorney General Act, among several other violations.
You can read more about the lawsuit by clicking here or by clicking here.
SROURIAN LAW FIRM’S CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT
The class action lawsuit, titled Medlock v. Manlin I LLC, is currently pending in Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 18STCV05391. If you worked for any MedMen location in California at any time from November 16, 2014, until the present and would like more information about this case, please call us at (310) 601-3131 or send an email to contact@slfla.com. Be sure to give your name, telephone number, and the best time to reach you, and an attorney will get back to you soon.
FREE CONSULTATION
Srourian Law Firm, with locations in Los Angeles, Westwood, Woodland Hills, and Orange County is aggressively pursuing claims against MedMen, and other California cannabis dispensaries in Los Angeles, Hollywood, Santa Monica, Orange, Irvine, Anaheim, Santa Ana, Newport Beach, Costa Mesa, Fullerton, Tustin, Mission Viejo, San Clemente, Garden Grove, Laguna Niguel, Brea, Fountain Valley, Aliso Viejo, Yorba Linda, Westminster, Laguna Hills, Cypress, and La Habra. If you or someone you know suffered violations of the California Labor Code in relation to their employment with a cannabis dispensary, you may be entitled to compensation as a part of the class action lawsuit. Please contact us to speak with one of our lawyers for a free consultation.
Srourian Law Firm Leads The Way In Negotiating $3 Million Settlement On Behalf of National Group of ATM Technicians
Srourian Law Firm is happy to report it successfully negotiated a $3 million settlement on behalf of a national group of ATM technicians claiming, among other violations, unpaid on-call time.
SROURIAN LAW FIRM’S CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT
Class Members who stand to recover from this action will be notified of their share of settlement upon approval of the settlement with the Court.
FREE CONSULTATION
Srourian Law Firm, with locations in Los Angeles, Westwood, Woodland Hills, and Orange County is aggressively pursuing claims against California ATM repair companies in Los Angeles, Hollywood, Santa Monica, Orange, Irvine, Anaheim, Santa Ana, Newport Beach, Costa Mesa, Fullerton, Tustin, Mission Viejo, San Clemente, Garden Grove, Laguna Niguel, Brea, Fountain Valley, Aliso Viejo, Yorba Linda, Westminster, Laguna Hills, Cypress, and La Habra. If you or someone you know suffered violations of the California Labor Code in relation to their employment with an ATM repair company, you may be entitled to compensation as a part of the class action lawsuit. Please contact us to speak with one of our lawyers for a free consultation.
California Courts Continue To Alter The Independent Contractor Landscape
On April 30, 2018, the California Supreme Court issued a unanimous ruling
in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles (Dynamex). Dynamex
defined a three part “ABC test”, simplifying the Court-established independent contractor test in
SG Borello & Sons v. Department of Industrial Rel. (Borello) (1989).
Dynamex was the result of defendant company converting all of its California drivers to
independent contractors as a cost savings measure in 2004. Classifying workers as independent
contractors removes an employer’s obligation to comply with minimum wage and overtime laws
while also shifting the risk of doing business onto the worker. The Court in Dynamex embraced
the general perspective that misclassifying workers as independent contractors is harmful and
unfair to workers and the public as a whole.
Taking from the Borello test, the Dynamex court shifted the burden to the employer and defined
three requirements to satisfy in order to prove an employee is properly classified as an
independent contractor: (A) the worker is free from the control and direction of the hiring entity
in connection with the performance of the work; (B) the worker performs work that is outside the
usual course of the hiring entity’s business; and (C) that the worker is customarily engaged in an
independently established trade, occupation, or business of the same nature as the work
performed. An employer must satisfy all three requirements before an employee would need to
rebut an employer’s classification.
These defined requirements address a common issue in recent hiring trends and the “gig
economy” (i.e. app related, per project hiring). Companies will have a more difficult time
unfairly forcing an individual worker to bear the burden of being their own business while the
companies continue to maintain their right to set pay and control work parameters.
A new decision on October 22, 2018, Garcia v. Border Transportation Group, LLC (Garcia),
analyzed the California Supreme Court’s decision in Dynamex. The Garcia held that a plaintiff’s
wage order related claims (i.e. unpaid wages, failure to pay minimum wage, failure to provide
meal and rest periods, etc.) are governed by the “suffer or permit to work” standard set forth in
Dynamex. Plaintiff’s remaining claims for overtime, wrongful termination and waiting time
penalties under Labor Code section 203, are not covered by the wage orders, and therefore are
subject to the Borello test, citing that Dynamex did not actually overturn Borello.
Overall, the independent contractor classification continues to be refined in the current “gig
economy” employment environment. If you or someone you know is misclassified or believe to
be misclassified as an independent contractor, contact Srourian Law Firm to speak with an
attorney about your rights.
Srourian Law Firm Files Class Action Lawsuit Against Chefs Toys For Violation Of California Labor Code And Related Claims
Srourian Law Firm has filed a putative class action on behalf of former and current non-exempt workers of Chefs Toys in Orange County Superior Court. The lawsuit includes drivers, installers, and warehouse workers, along with other similar non-managerial positions. The lawsuit alleges that Chefs Toys violated various provisions of the California Labor Code, including failure to pay minimum wage, failure to pay overtime, failure to authorize meal breaks and rest breaks in accordance with California law, failure to timely pay final paychecks, failure to provide proper paystubs, and violation of California Private Attorney General Act, among several other violations.
SROURIAN LAW FIRM’S CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT
The class action lawsuit, titled Guerrero v. Chefs Toys is currently pending in Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30-2018-00980488-CU-OE-CXC. If you worked for any Chefs Toys location in California at any time from March 20, 2014, until the present and would like more information about this case, please call us at (310) 601-3131 or send an email to contact@slfla.com. Be sure to give your name, telephone number, and the best time to reach you, and an attorney will get back to you soon.
FREE CONSULTATION
Srourian Law Firm, with locations in Los Angeles, Westwood, Woodland Hills, and Orange County is aggressively pursuing claims against Chefs Toys, and other California restaurant suppliers in Los Angeles, Hollywood, Santa Monica, Orange, Irvine, Anaheim, Santa Ana, Newport Beach, Costa Mesa, Fullerton, Tustin, Mission Viejo, San Clemente, Garden Grove, Laguna Niguel, Brea, Fountain Valley, Aliso Viejo, Yorba Linda, Westminster, Laguna Hills, Cypress, and La Habra. If you or someone you know suffered violations of the California Labor Code in relation to their employment with a restaurant supplier, you may be entitled to compensation as a part of the class action lawsuit. Please contact us to speak with one of our lawyers for a free consultation.