Sierra Pac. Industries Wage & Hour Cases, 116 Cal. App. 5th 1038 (2025)
For more than four years, Sierra Pacific defended against this wage and hour class action, “remaining silent on the subject of arbitration and refusing to produce arbitration agreements signed by putative class members, despite being ordered to do so.” Only after eight plaintiff classes were certified did Sierra Pacific produce
Bradsbery v. Vicar Operating, Inc., 110 Cal. App. 5th 899 (2025)
La Kimba Bradsbery and Cheri Brakensiek sued their former employer (Vicar Operating, Inc.) in a putative class action, alleging that Vicar had failed to provide them with meal periods for shifts between five and six hours. Vicar responded that plaintiffs had prospectively waived in writing all waivable meal periods throughout their employment with Vicar.
Perez v. Rose Hills Co., 2025 WL 811096 (9th Cir. 2025)
Elizabeth Perez sued her former employer (Rose Hills) in this putative class action involving alleged violations of various California wage and hour laws. Rose Hills removed the action to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), but the district court remanded the action on the ground that Rose Hills had
Gonzalez v. Nowhere Beverly Hills LLC, 107 Cal. App. 5th 111 (2024)
Edgar Gonzalez worked for Nowhere Santa Monica at its Erewhon market for approximately five months before filing a putative class action for wage-and-hour violations under the California Labor Code. Gonzalez filed suit against 10 Nowhere entities in response to which the 10 entities filed a motion to compel arbitration based upon an
Chavez v. California Collision, LLC, 107 Cal. App. 5th 298 (2024)
Before trial on Samuel Zarate’s wage/hour claims, the employer (California Collision, LLC (“CCL”)) made an offer of settlement pursuant to Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 998. After Zarate failed to recover at trial more money from CCL than it had offered before trial, the trial court awarded the company $54,473 in costs pursuant
The California Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) has released updated guidance clarifying how the state’s latest statutory enactments will impact employers’ paid sick leave obligations. Specifically, as we reported here, Assembly Bill (AB) 2499 and Senate Bill (SB) 1105 expand the permissible reasons for which employees can use paid sick leave.
The updated FAQs now explain that, in addition to existing uses of paid
Osborne v. Pleasanton Auto. Co., 106 Cal. App. 5th 361 (2024)
Eva Osborne sued her former employer (Pleasanton Automotive) and its executive general manager (the ironically named Bob Slap) for discrimination, retaliation, harassment and wage and hour violations arising during the four years while Osborne worked as Slap’s executive assistant. Two years into the litigation, Slap filed a cross-complaint against Osborne, asserting that statements
The “Summer of PAGA” continued last week when the California Supreme Court ruled in Turrieta v. Lyft, Inc., Case No. S271721, that a plaintiff in a Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) action does not have standing to intervene or object to a settlement in a parallel action involving overlapping PAGA claims.
The structure of PAGA tends to invite the scenario facing the parties and
On June 27, 2024, the California Legislature passed AB 2288 and SB 92, compromise legislation that reformed the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) and averted a ballot measure that threatened to repeal the law entirely this November. We previously reported on the compromise here when the deal was announced, and published a primer on the substantive changes to the law here.
Arguably the
On June 27, 2024, by near-unanimous vote, the California Legislature passed two bills enacting much-needed reform to the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA). We previously reported on the legislative compromise last week, when the deal was first announced.
The most profound changes are contained in AB 2288, which amended Labor Code § 2699—the beating heart of PAGA. AB 2288 makes several significant changes to the