Call Today 619-908-1354 800-576-0633
Clark Law Group
Pursuing Justice For You

Current Cases

Alvarado v. Lewis Operating Corp. (34-2014-00159707)

— Sacramento County Superior Court
— Honorable David I. Brown

Case Summary: Plaintiff, on behalf of other similar employees, alleges that while working for Defendant Lewis Operating Corp. in a building maintenance capacity, he and other employees were required to be on "standby" for one week out of the month. While on standby, Plaintiff alleges that employees were not paid for their time despite being required to take telephone calls and respond to requests in less than 30 minutes, and being prohibited from attending events that would prohibit them from responding to calls within 30 minutes.


Avila v. DirecTV, LLC (BC640701)
- Los Angeles County Superior Court
- Honorable Amy D. Hogue

Case Summary: Plaintiff, on behalf of other field service technicians, allege that while working for Defendant DirecTV, LLC, as a field service technician, he and other employees were not compensated for all the time spent to load and unload equipment from their company service vehicles at the beginning and end of each workday and the time between the end of required meetings and their schedule start times.


Beckman v. Arizona Canning Company, LLC et al. (3:16-cv-02792-JAH-BLM)

-  United States District Court Southern District of California 
-  Honorable John A. Houston

Case Summary: Plaintiffs, on behalf of other similar consumers, allege that Arizona Canning Company, LLC deceives consumers by selling Sun Vista whole bean products that are mostly filled with water.


Budet v. American Advisors Group (JCCP 4807)

— Orange County Superior Court
— Honorable Kim G. Dunning

Case Summary: Plaintiffs, on behalf of other similar employees, allege that while working for Defendant American Advisors Group, hourly employees who were paid, in part, by commissions and nondiscretionary bonuses, did not receive such payments if the loan was not approved and funded within 30 days. In addition, Plaintiffs allege that employees were not properly compensated for overtime because Defendant failed to include commissions and nondiscretionary bonuses in calculating their hourly rate of pay.


Chang v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc. (37-2016-00027294-CU-OE-CTL)
— San Diego County Superior Court
— Honorable Joel R. Wohlfeil

Case Summary: Plaintiff, on behalf of similar employees, alleges that while working for Defendant CVS Pharmacy, Inc., he and other employees were not properly compensated for the time they spent participating in CVS mandated training.


Fuselier v. Y.K.K. Enterprises, Inc. (3:16-cv-02002-MMA-JLB)
— United States District Court Southern District of California
— Honorable Judge Anello

Case Summary: Plaintiffs, on behalf of other similar employees, allege that Defendant Y.Y.K. Enterprises, Inc. requires hourly employees to arrive 30 minutes before their start time to load equipment and be transported to their worksites, but fails to compensate them for such time. Additionally, Plaintiffs allege that employees are often instructed to work through their meal and rest periods.


Godoy v. American Technologies, Inc. (RG15780222)
— Alameda County Superior Court
— Honorable George C. Hernandez, Jr.

Case Summary: Plaintiff, on behalf of other similar employees, alleges that Defendant American Technologies, Inc. fails to adequately compensate its employees for overtime because time they spent traveling to and from each worksite is not calculated into their total hours of work, but rather recorded and paid separately as "travel time." Plaintiff also alleges that as a result of Defendant's travel time policy, employees who work more than 10 hours a day are deprived of a second, 30-minute meal period. Finally, Plaintiff alleges that employees are required to purchase tools and other equipment necessary to perform their duties, for which they are not reimbursed.


Gonzalez v. L and R Auto Parks, Inc. (BC589677)
— Los Angeles County Superior Court
— Honorable Ann I. Jones

Case Summary: Plaintiff, on behalf of similar parking attendants, alleges that Defendant L and R Auto Parks, Inc. fails to provided its parking lot attendants with adequate meal and rest periods. More specifically, Plaintiff contends that he was required to sign an on-duty meal period agreement that violates California law, because the nature of his work does not prevent him from being relieved of all duty for 30 minutes. In addition, Plaintiff alleges that he was not provided with lawful rest periods because he is not permitted to leave the lot and is required to perform all of the same duties that he is required to perform during any other working hours.


Harrington v. Professional Security Consultants (BC538101)
— Los Angeles County Superior Court
— Honorable Ann I. Jones

Case Summary: Plaintiff, on behalf of similar security guards, alleges that Defendant Professional Security Consultants fails to reimburse its security guards for expenses incurred in the discharge of their duties. In particular, Plaintiff contends that Defendant improperly deducts a $125 deposit for uniforms and fails to return said funds upon separation. Plaintiff further alleges that as a matter of company policy, Defendant does not reimburse guards for necessary equipment, including batons, duty belts, and pepper spray. Finally, Plaintiff alleges that while guards are required to be CPR certified, they are not paid for the time they spend in training, nor reimbursed for the cost of obtaining a certification card.


Hernandez v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. (1-15-CV-282191)
— Santa Clara County Superior Court
— Honorable Peter H. Kirwan

Case Summary: Plaintiff, on behalf of similar employees, alleges that in violation of California law, Defendant Chipotle Mexican Grill regularly requires its hourly employees to work seven or more consecutive days.


Hudson v. Pacific Bell Telephone Company (34-2016-00202203)
- Sacramento Superior Court
- Honorable Alan G. Perkins

Case Summary: Plaintiff, on behalf of other similar employees, allege that while working for Defendant Pacific Bell Telephone Company dba AT&T, as a technician, he and other employees were not compensated for the time spent loading and unloading their service vehicles, nor were they provided with the opportunity to take a legally compliant meal period.


Kim v. American Tire Depot, Inc. (BC616213)
— Los Angeles County Superior Court
— Honorable William F. Highberger

Case Summary: Plaintiff, on behalf of similar employees, alleges that while working as an assistant store manager for Defendant American Tire Depot, he and other employees were not provided with meal and rest periods because they were often the only employee available to assist customers with transactions. In addition, employees were not provided with a written commission policy that properly informed them of the products and services eligible for commissions.


Kramer v. Uber Technologies, Inc., et al. (BC58981)

— Los Angeles County Superior Court
— Honorable Ann I. Jones

Case Summary: Plaintiffs, on behalf of similar employees, allege that while working as Brand Ambassadors for Defendants Uber Technologies, Inc. and TargetCW, they were not compensated for time spent collecting supplies and setting up promotional booths. In addition, Plaintiffs allege that Brand Ambassadors often worked more than 8 hours a day and were not paid for overtime. Finally, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants failed to reimburse Brand Ambassadors for expenses incurred as a result of their employment, including mileage and toll expenses.


Lee v. Vivint Inc. (37-2014-00042932-CU-OE-CTL)
— San Diego County Superior Court
— Honorable Richard E. L. Strauss

Case Summary: Plaintiff was employed by Defendant Vivint, Inc. as a summer technician. As a technician, Plaintiff was paid on a piece-rate basis to install residential security systems throughout Southern California. Plaintiff alleges that because he and other technicians were paid based solely on the number of security systems they installed, they were not properly compensated for time spent collecting necessary tools and equipment and driving to various worksites each day. Plaintiff further alleges that despite being required to use their own personal vehicles for such work, technicians were not reimbursed for the expenses they incurred. Finally, Plaintiff alleges that technicians were not provided with lawful meal and rest periods because as a matter of company policy, Defendant considered the time spent driving from one worksite to another to be an employee’s meal and rest periods.


Leggins v. Pacific Bell Telephone Company (BC587252)
— Los Angeles County Superior Courtt
— Honorable Ernest M. Hiroshige

Case Summary: Plaintiff, on behalf of similar employees, alleges that while working for Defendant Pacific Bell Telephone Company as a splicing technician, he and other employees were periodically required to work seven or more consecutive days in violation of California law.


Markell v. Excalibur Pizza, LLC (34-2014-00159434)
— Sacramento County Superior Court
— Honorable Alan G. Perkins

Case Summary: Plaintiff, on behalf of similar delivery drivers, alleges that Defendant Excalibur Pizza does not properly reimburse its delivery drivers for mileage expenses incurred in making deliveries because the company pays a flat, per delivery fee, rather than reimbursing drivers for the actual number of miles they drive.


Medina v. rePlanet, LLC (RG16799801)
— Honorable Brad Seligman
— Alameda County Superior Court

Case Summary: Plaintiffs, in a representative capacity, allege that while working as recycling specialists for Defendant rePlanet, LLC, they were not provided with rest breaks and were often provided with late meal periods, which occurred after more than 5 hours of work.


Mendoza v. Nordstrom, Inc. (S224611)
— California Supreme Court

Case Summary: Plaintiffs, on behalf of similar employees, allege that hourly employees of Defendant Nordstrom, Inc. were regularly required to work seven or more days in violation of California law.


Mitchell v. Southern California Gas Company (BC620639)
— Los Angeles County Superior Court
— Honorable John Wiley

Case Summary: Plaintiffs, on behalf of similar homeowners, allege that Defendants Southern California Gas Company and Sempra Energy were negligent and otherwise unlawful in constructing, maintaining, and operating the Aliso Canyon Facility, which was found to be leaking methane gas, pollutants, noxious odors and other contaminants in October 2015. As a result of the leak, Plaintiffs and other home owners have suffered, and continue to suffer, a substantial decrease in the market value of their properties.


Ogura v. Thrifty Payless, Inc. (BC605968)
— Los Angeles County Superior Court
— Honorable William F. Highberger

Case Summary: Plaintiff, on behalf of similar employees, alleges that he and other assistant store managers employed by Defendant Thrifty Payless, Inc. were not provided with lawful rest periods because as store managers on duty, they were required to be on-call at all times. As such, Plaintiff alleges that even when rest breaks were provided, they were often interrupted.


Quinlan v. Lyft, Inc.(BC591540)
— Los Angeles County Superior Court
— Honorable Kenneth R. Freeman

Case Summary: Plaintiff, on behalf of similar drivers, alleges that drivers employed by Defendant Lyft, Inc. are misclassified as independent contractors. Due to the misclassification, drivers are not paid at least minimum wage for all hours worked and are denied overtime compensation for work in excess of 8 hours a day or 40 hours a week. In addition, drivers are required to use their own vehicles and personal cell phones without being reimbursed for mileage and use. Finally, drivers were not provided with meal and rest periods pursuant to California law.


Ramirez v. Wells Fargo Bank (RG10496146)
— Alameda County Superior Court
— Honorable George C. Hernandez, Jr.

Case Summary: Plaintiffs, on behalf of similar employees, allege that Defendant Wells Fargo Bank failed to pay its personal bankers and customer service representatives for all hours worked, including overtime compensation. In addition, Plaintiffs allege that Defendant scheduled its employees to work "split shifts," but did not pay the required split shift premium.


Ramos v. Infinity Insurance Company (2:14-cv-011510-JFW-CW)
— United States District Court, Central District of California
— Honorable John F. Walter

Case Summary: Plaintiffs, on behalf of similar policy holders, allege that as a matter of company policy, Defendant Infinity Insurance Company improperly denies claims brought under a policy holder’s uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage if the claimant was not "occupying" an insured vehicle at the time of injury.


Rodriguez v. Home Care Assistance, Inc. (15cv280200)
— Santa Clara County Superior Court
— Honorable Peter H. Kirwan

Case Summary: Plaintiffs, on behalf of similar caregivers, allege that individuals employed by Defendant Home Care Assistance, Inc. as caregivers are paid for a set number of hours per week, regardless of the actual number of hours worked. In addition, Plaintiffs allege that Defendant deducts time for "sleeping" when in fact, caregivers are on-call and under Defendant's control at all times.


Spiegler v. The Wellpoint Companies, Inc. (BC566906)
— Los Angeles County Superior Court
— Honorable William F. Highberger

Case Summary: Plaintiff, on behalf of similar employees, alleges that individuals employed as direct sales agents by Wellpoint Companies, Inc. are not properly compensated because Defendant sets its enrollment goals, which are the basis for the company’s written commission plan, after the sales period has already ended.


Standridge v. InVentiv Health, Inc. (BC604315)
— Los Angeles County Superior Court
— Honorable Elihu M. Berie

Case Summary: Plaintiff, on behalf of similar employees, alleges that employees of Defendant InVentiv Health, Inc. who were permitted to work remotely or "telecommute," were not adequately reimbursed for necessary business expenses, including cellular phone service, internet service, and home office expenses, as required under California law.


Stout v. Einstein Noah Restaurant Group, Inc. (RG15786192)
— Alameda County Superior Court
— Honorable George C. Hernandez, Jr.

Case Summary: Plaintiff, on behalf of similar employees, alleges that the timekeeping software used by Defendant Einstein Noah Restaurant Group, Inc. would automatically clock out all employees on shift whenever an end of day report was run. While employees continued to work, they were not paid for such time. Plaintiff also alleges that Defendant failed to provide timely meal and rest periods.

Contact Us

Bold labels are required.

Contact Information
disclaimer.

The use of the Internet or this form for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be sent through this form.

close

Privacy Policy