Srourian Law Firm Files Class Action Lawsuit Against Los Alamitos Hemodialysis Center For Violation Of California Labor Code And Related Claims

Srourian Law Firm has filed a putative class action on behalf of former and current employees of Los Alamitos Hemodialysis Center in Los Angeles Superior Court. The lawsuit alleges that Los Alamitos Hemodialysis Center violated various provisions of the California Labor Code, including failure to pay minimum wage, failure to compensate for "on-call" time, failure to pay overtime, failure to provide meal breaks and rest breaks, and violation of California Private Attorney General Act, among several other violations.

SROURIAN LAW FIRM’S CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT
The class action lawsuit was filed by Pamela Labutong, a former nurse technician for Los Alamitos Hemodialysis Center in the City of Los Alamitos, California. Labtuong alleges the facility did not follow California law in paying its employees and providing accurate paystubs. The lawsuit alleges the facility was not properly staffed to allow for employees to take meal and rest breaks.

FREE CONSULTATION
Srourian Law Firm, with locations in Los Angeles, Westwood, Woodland Hills, and Orange County is aggressively pursuing claims against Los Alamitos Hemodialysis Center and other California dialysis centers in Los Angeles, 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 dialysis 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.


Ninth Circuit Holds Mortgage Underwriters Are Entitled To Overtime Compensation Under Federal Labor Standards Act

The Federal Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a published decision on July 5, 2017, stating that mortgage underwriters at Provident Savings Bank don’t qualify for overtime administrative employee exemptions under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), and are thus entitled to receive overtime pay.

The case is McKeen-Chaplin v. Provident Savings Bank, 2017 S.O.S. 15-16758, D.C. No. 2:12-cv-03035-GEB-AC.

The Court reasoned that since the underwriters’ job duties, such as reviewing loan applications using guidelines established by the bank/investors — don’t relate to the bank’s management or general business operations, they don’t meet the administrative employee overtime pay exemption under the FLSA. The Court reasoned that the underwriters’ duties go to the heart of Provident’s marketplace offerings, not to the internal administration of Provident’s business, the panel said.

“Thus, we conclude that where a bank sells mortgage loans and resells the funded loans on the secondary market as a primary font of business, mortgage underwriters who implement guidelines designed by corporate management, and who must ask permission when deviating from protocol, are most accurately considered employees responsible for production, not administrators who manage, guide, and administer the business,” the panel said.

The decision reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment and remanded the case with instruction to find in favor of the mortgage underwriters.

If you or someone you know is a mortgage underwriter that is regularly required to work more than 8 hours per day or 40 hours per week without getting paid the overtime rate, or required to work without receiving uninterrupted thirty-minute meal breaks or ten-minute rest breaks, contact Srourian Law Firm for a free consultation to discuss claims you may have.


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

courtroom-898931_640

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.