Final Approval Granted For Delphine Restaurant Worker Class Action Lawsuit
Srourian Law Firm proudly announces that the Hon. Elihu M. Berle of the Los Angeles Superior Court granted final approval of the $325,000.00 settlement achieved in Adam Clay v. Innovative Dining Group, et al. Srourian Law Firm was appointed as lead counsel in early 2017, bringing an end to nearly two years of litigation.
At a fairness hearing held on Monday, Judge Berle signed off on the settlement, which is estimated to provide a net benefit of over $600 to each of about 500 former and current employees of Delphine Restaurant and Living Room/Station Bar located inside the W Hollywood Hotel in Los Angeles, California.
Srourian Law Firm Files Class Action Lawsuit Against Nautilus Hyosung America For Violation Of Federal Labor Standards Act And Related Claims
Srourian Law Firm has filed a federal putative class action on behalf of former and current employees of the Nautilus Hyosung America. The lawsuit alleges that Nautilus Hyosung America, the leading provider of retail delivery products to the banking industry, violated various labor code provisions, including failure to pay minimum wage, failure to compensate for "on-call" time, failure to pay overtime, failure to provide meal and rest breaks, and violation of California Private Attorney General Act among several other violations.
The lawsuit was mentioned by North California Record, which is owned by the U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform. You can read North California Record's coverage by clicking here.
SROURIAN LAW FIRM’S CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT
The class action lawsuit alleges that Nautilus Hyosung America's conduct violates federal and California labor laws. The suit seeks actual damages for unpaid wages, in addition to penalties, interest, attorneys’ fees, and punitive damages.
FREE CONSULTATION
Srourian Law Firm, with locations in Los Angeles, Westwood, Woodland Hills, and Orange County is aggressively pursuing claims against Nautilus Hyosung America. If you or someone you know works or has worked for Nautilus Hyosung America, 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 Attaining $325,000.00 Settlement For California Labor Code Violations
A California wage and hour employment class-action led by Srourian Law Firm lawsuit reached an important milestone yesterday when Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Elihu M. Berle preliminarily approved a settlement of $325,000.00 for claims brought by former and current employees of the Delphine Restaurant, Living Room, and Living Station inside the W Hotel Hollywood. The lawsuit focused on the deprivation of overtime pay, meal periods, rest periods, and various other California Labor Code violations.
The California wage and hour lawsuit (Adam Clay v. Innovative Dining Group, LLC, et al., Los Angeles Superior Court Case Number BC598113, in Central District of Los Angeles) was filed in 2015 by named plaintiff Adam Clay. The settlement benefits all current and former hourly, non-exempt employees of Innovative Dining Group at the W Hotel in Hollywood who worked from October 21, 2011 through the date of settlement approval.
On February 23, 2017, Judge Berle granted preliminary approval of the $325,000.00 settlement. The next step in the process comes later in the year, when Judge Berle will hear arguments for a final fairness and approval hearing on June 26, 2017.
Srourian Law Firm Files Lawsuit Against DoubleTree By Hilton Torrance For Violating The California Labor Code
Srourian Law Firm has filed a putative class action on behalf of former and current employees of the DoubleTree By Hilton Torrance in Los Angeles, California. The lawsuit alleges the hotel violated various labor code provisions, including failure to pay overtime, failure to provide meal and rest breaks, and failure to pay minimum wage, among several other violations.
SROURIAN LAW FIRM’S CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT
The class action lawsuit alleges that the Marriott's conduct violates California’s labor laws. The suit seeks actual damages for unpaid wages, in addition to penalties, interest, attorneys' fees, and punitive damages.
FREE CONSULTATION
Srourian Law Firm, with locations in Los Angeles, Westwood, Woodland Hills, and Orange County is aggressively pursuing claims against DoubleTree By Hilton Torrance. If you or someone you know works or has worked for The Shore 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.
Los Angeles Casting Workshops Violate Krekorian Act
The Los Angeles city attorney’s office has filed criminal charges against 25 people who own, operate or work with five casting workshop companies, alleging that they have violated the Krekorian Talent Scam Prevention Act by requiring actors to pay illegal fees in exchange for auditions.
California’s Krekorian Act makes it a misdemeanor for casting workshops to charge for auditions or other employment opportunities.
The companies allegedly charged actors to perform in front of a casting director or their staff members under the guise of an educational experience. Fees for such workshops typically range from $50 to $150 per session.
Several well-known casting workshop companies were named in the investigation, including Actors' Ally, The Actors Link, The Actor's Key, Your Studio Productions and The Casting Network. (The Actors Link is now known as Ace Studios.)
Several of the casting professionals had big names on their résumés, including American Horror Story, Castle, Criminal Minds and The Big Bang Theory. See below the credits of some of the more prominent casting professionals who were indicted.
Actors Alley
Ty Harman
· Santa Clarita Diet (2017)
· The Real O’Neals (2016-2017)
· School of Rock (2016)
· K.C. Undercover (2016)
· Liv and Maddie (2013-2014)
· Shake It Up! (2012-2013)
· The Game (2007-2009)
· Girlfriends (2007-2008)
Lindsay Chag
· Robin Hood: Men in Tights (1993)
· Dracula: Dead and Loving It (1995)
· Walt Disney’s Wonderful World of Color (1990)
The Actors Link
Scott David
· Criminal Minds (2005-2016)
· Criminal Minds: Beyond Borders (2016)
· 2012 (2009)
· Leverage (2008-2010)
· Nash Bridges (1996)
Michele Seamon
· Mike and Dave Need Wedding Dates (2016)
· Fresh Off the Boat (2015)
Alexa Pereira
· New Girl (2016)
· Adventures in Babysitting (2016)
· One Big Happy (2015)
Rebecca “Becky” Silverman
· Girlfriends’ Guide to Divorce (2014-2015)
· American Horror Story (2014-2015)
· Just Go With It (2011)
· Without a Trace (2004-2009)
· Criminal Minds (2010-2017)
· Criminal Minds: Beyond Borders (2016)
· Rizzoli & Isles (2015)
The Actor’s Key
Actor’s Key, LLC
Ricki Maslar
· Dahmer (2002)
· Brother to Brother (2004)
· The Bronx Bull (2016)
Nancy Foy
· Jumanji (1995)
· Jurassic Park III (2001)
· Blade II (2002)
· Doctor Dolittle (1998)
· Let’s Be Cops (2014)
· Ladder 49 (2004)
· Hidalgo (2004)
· October Sky (1999)
· Flubber (1997)
· Paper Towns (2015)
Studio Productions
Live2Act, LLC
Darya Balyura
· Switched at Birth (2013-2017)
· Veronica Mars (2014)
· Being Human (2013)
· Bob’s Burgers (2012)
· iCarly (2007-2008)
· Transformers (2007)
Amy Cohen
· Tyler Perry’s Love Thy Neighbor (2013-2015)
· Everybody Hate Chris (2005-2006)
· The Apprentice (2004)
Kimberly Ehrlich
· Grown Ups (2010)
· All My Children (2006-2007)
· Poltergeist (2015)
· Madam Secretary (2014-2015)
· Mistresses (2013-2014)
· Reign (2013-2014)
Rachel Rose Oginsky
· Suits (2011-2014)
· The Bold and the Beautiful (2016-2017)
· Masters of Sex (2015)
· Scream Queens (2015)
Peter Pappas
· Two and a Half Men (2004-2015)
· The Secret Life of the American Teenager (2008-2013)
· Mom (2013-2017)
· The Big Bang Theory (2006-2008)
· Mike & Molly (2010-2011)
· 7th Heaven (2007)
· I Didn’t Do It (2014-2015)
The Casting Network
Wintyme, LLC
Eddie Jaszek
· Castle (2016)
· Poltergeist (2015)
· Bones (2010)
Miriam Hoffman
· Ghost of Girlfriends Past (2009)
· The Millers (2013-2015)
· Lincoln Heights (2007-2008)
· Night at the Museum (2006)
· The O.C. (2006)
Srourian Law Firm is investigating a potential civil class action lawsuit against offenders of the Krekorian Talent Scam Prevention Act. Individuals who were scammed are entitled to receive back three times the amount they paid to offenders for "educational" or "workshop" classes, a guise to cover up the "pay to play" scheme. Individuals are also entitled to receive their attorney's fees.
If you or anyone you know took a class or workshop within the last year at Actors Alley, The Actors Link, The Actor’s Key, Studio Productions, or The Casting Network, contact Srourian Law Firm to discuss your rights.
2017 Rising Star Selection
For the second consecutive year, Srourian Law Firm founder Daniel Srourian has been selected as a Southern California Rising Star!
Rising Stars is a research-driven, peer influenced rating service of outstanding lawyers who have attained a high degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. It is an exclusive list, recognizing no more than 2.5 percent of licensed attorneys in the State of California. To be eligible for inclusion in Rising Stars, a candidate must be either 40 years old or younger or in practice for ten years or less.
The results of the survey will appear in Southern California Super Lawyers Magazine in July 2017.
Srourian Law Firm congratulates Daniel on his selection as a Rising Star!
Does California Law Require A Day Of Rest? California Supreme Court Set To Weigh In
So much for free will.
On February 7, 2017, the California Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments in Mendoza v. Nordstrom, Inc. [S224611. (9th Cir,. No. 12-57130; 778 F.3d 834, Central District of California; 8:10-cv-00109- CJC-MLG.)] The California Supreme Court will decide on the number of consecutive days an employee may legally work without running afoul of the state's so-called "day of rest" statute. The issue arose when two employees of Nordstrom claimed the employer required them to work for more than six consecutive days without a day off, in violation of the law.
Per the Court's official Calendar, the questions presented are: “(A) California Labor Code section 551 provides that ‘[e]very person employed in any occupation of labor is entitled to one day’s rest therefrom in seven.’ Is the required day of rest calculated by the workweek, or is it calculated on a rolling basis for any consecutive seven-day period?
(B) California Labor Code section 556 exempts employers from providing such a day of rest ‘when the total hours of employment do not exceed 30 hours in any week or six hours in any one day thereof.’ (Emphasis added.) Does that exemption apply when an employee works less than six hours in any one day of the applicable week, or does it apply only when an employee works less than six hours in each day of the week? (C) California Labor Code section 552 provides that an employer may not ‘cause his employees to work more than six days in seven.’ What does it mean for an employer to ‘cause’ an employee to work more than six days in seven: force, coerce, pressure, schedule, encourage, reward, permit, or something else?”
The lower Ninth Circuit said it found the interpretations proffered by both sides plausible, discovered no useful legislative history, and unearthed no California appellate law to provide a guide, so it turned to the California Supreme Court with "the obligations of thousands of California employers, and the rights of tens of thousands of California workers … at stake." Nicely done.
The amicus brief is a must read! You can read it by clicking here.
Detailed discussion
In 2009, Christopher Mendoza filed suit against his former employer, Nordstrom. According to Mendoza, during his tenure as a barista at a Nordstrom espresso bar and a sales representative in the cosmetics department, the national retailer violated Sections 551 and 552 of the California Labor Code, the so-called "day of rest" law.
Section 551 provides that "[e]very person employed in any occupation of labor is entitled to one day's rest therefrom in seven," while Section 552 states that "[n]o employer of labor shall cause his employees to work more than six days in seven." California Labor Code Section 556 exempts an employer from the day of rest requirement "when the total hours [worked by an employee] do not exceed 30 hours in any week or six hours in any one day thereof."
Mendoza claimed that he worked more than six consecutive days on three occasions, one time working 11 days straight (although working fewer than six hours on two of those days), seven straight days another time (with fewer than six hours on three days), and eight consecutive days (five with fewer than six hours). On each of these occasions, Mendoza was not originally scheduled to work more than six consecutive days but did so after being asked by a coworker or supervisor to fill in for another employee.
A second employee, Megan Gordon, joined the suit in April 2011. She worked as a fitting room attendant at a Nordstrom Rack store for more than six consecutive days on one occasion, although on two of those days she worked fewer than six hours.
After a two-day bench trial, a California federal court judge sided with Nordstrom.
Section 551 applies on a rolling basis to any consecutive seven-day period rather than a workweek as defined by an employer (such as Nordstrom's Sunday-to-Saturday schedule), the court said. While that would appear to mean the defendant violated Sections 551 and 552, Labor Code Section 556 exempted Nordstrom from liability because each plaintiff worked fewer than six hours on at least one day in the consecutive seven days of work. And even if the exemption did not apply, Nordstrom did not "cause" Mendoza or Gordon to work more than seven consecutive days because they voluntarily chose to waive their rights and work extra days, the court added.
"The day of rest statutes only prohibit an employer from requiring or causing an employee to work more than six consecutive days," U.S. District Court Judge Cormac J. Carney wrote. "An employee can waive that protection if he or she wants to, which is exactly what Mr. Mendoza and Ms. Gordon did here."
This conclusion was consistent with the regulatory history of the "day of rest" law and was also confirmed by the California Supreme Court inBrinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court, where the court found that employees could waive their right to a meal break, the court explained.
Gordon and Mendoza appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
A panel of the federal appellate court considered the issue and, finding no controlling California precedent and an ambiguous statutory text, turned to the California Supreme Court for help.
The panel certified three questions to the state's highest court:
(A) California Labor Code section 551 provides that "[e]very person employed in any occupation of labor is entitled to one day's rest therefrom in seven." Is the required day of rest calculated by the workweek, or is it calculated on a rolling basis for any consecutive seven-day period?
(B) California Labor Code section 556 exempts employers from providing such a day of rest "when the total hours of employment do not exceed 30 hours in any week or six hours in any one day thereof." Does that exemption apply when an employee works less than six hours in any one day of the applicable week, or does it apply only when an employee works less than six hours in each day of the week?
(C) California Labor Code section 552 provides that an employer may not "cause his employees to work more than six days in seven." What does it mean for an employer to "cause" an employee to work more than six days in seven: force, coerce, pressure, schedule, encourage, reward, permit, or something else?
Srourian Law Firm Delivers $1.04 Million Jury Verdict In Los Angeles Superior Court
On August 4, 2016, a Pasadena, California jury awarded over $1 million in economic and non-economic damges to a client of Srourian Law Firm following a three-day jury trial.
The case titled William Deloney v. Esmarelda Martinez, Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC508736, alleged personal injuries to 69-year-old William Deloney of Los Angeles, California, after an August 12, 2012 motor vehicle accident that occured on the 110 South Freeway.
The top offer from Defendant's insurance carrier to Srourian Law Firm on the eve of trial was $20,000.00, despite Deloney incurring over $42,000.00 in unpaid medical bills. After four years of litigation, the matter proceeded to trial in Los Angeles Superior Court Pasadena Courthouse on August 1, 2016.
Teaming up with Pejman Ben-Cohen, Esq. of Beverly Hills-based Carpenter Zuckerman & Rowley LLP, Srourian Law Firm attained justice for William Deloney with an award in excess of $1 million.
Judge Grants Final Approval For Hotel Workers Class Action
Srourian Law Firm announces that the Hon. William F. Highberger of the Los Angeles Superior Court has granted approval of the $850,000.00 settlement achieved in Joseph Sylvester v. Starwood Hotels. Srourian Law Firm was appointed as lead counsel in early 2016, and has vigorously litigated the case for nearly three years.
At a fairness hearing held on Tuesday, Judge Highberger signed off on the settlement, which is estimated to provide a net benefit of about $1,090 to each of about 440 former and current employees of the W Hotel in Hollywood, California.
You can read more about the approval by clicking here.
New Changes To The Private Attorney General Act
On June 15, 2016, the California Legislature passed SB 836, which contained numerous amendments to The Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (“PAGA”). PAGA authorizes aggrieved employees to file lawsuits to recover civil penalties on behalf of themselves, other employees and the state of California for Labor Code violations. While not all of the original proposed amendments were enacted, SB 836 makes several significant changes to PAGA. These changes, to go in effect on June 27, 2016, provides:
• The Labor and Workforce Development Agency (“LWDA”), the agency which coordinates workforce programs by overseeing seven major departments that serve California businesses and workers now has 60 days to review a notice under Labor Code § 2699.3(a). Prior to the amendments, the LWDA had 30 days to review. Additionally, the time for the LWDA to investigate a claim is extended to 180 days (it was 120 days);
• A Plaintiff cannot file a civil action until 65 days after sending notice to the LWDA (previously 33 days);
• The LWDA must be provided with a copy of any proposed settlement of a PAGA action at the time it is submitted to the court;
• A copy of the court’s judgment and any other order that awards or denies PAGA penalties must be provided to LWDA;
• All items that are required to be provided to the LWDA must be submitted online, including PAGA claim notices and employer cure notices or other responses;
• A $75 filing fee is required for a new PAGA claim notice and also for any initial employer response to a new PAGA claim notice. The filing fee may be waived if the party on whose behalf the notice or response is filed is entitled to in forma pauperis status; and
• When a plaintiff files a new PAGA lawsuit in court, a filed-stamped copy of the complaint must be provided to LWDA. This requirement only applies to cases in which the initial PAGA claim notice was filed on or after July 1, 2016.