This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Labor Law
Unfair Labor Practices
Federal Preemption of California’s Meal and Rest Break Laws, Minimum Pay and Piece Rates

Michael Burnham, Fernando Castillo, Neva Crawford, Ricky Crawford, Ted Day, John Gugler, Charles Howlett, Eduardo Jimenez, Bill McMahon, Jody Paulson, Robert Rojas, Todd Shook, Tony Skirrow, Dante Steward, Salvador Bucio Suarez and Daniel Ware, and all other "aggrieved" employees v. Ruan Transportation, and Does 1 through 100, inclusive

Published: Feb. 13, 2016 | Result Date: Feb. 4, 2016 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: 8:12-cv-00688-AG-AN Settlement –  $3,500,000

Court

USDC Central


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Aashish Y. Desai
(Desai Law Firm PC)

Adrianne De Castro
(Desai Law Firm PC)


Defendant

Lawrence L. Yang

Cynthia E. Gitt

Ani M. Akopyan
(Akopyan Law Firm APC)


Facts

Michael Burnham, Fernando Castillo, Neva Crawford, Ricky Crawford, Ted Day, John Gugler, Charles Howlett, Eduardo Jimenez, Bill McMahon, Jody Paulson, Robert Rojas, Todd Shook, Tony Skirrow, Dante Steward, Salvador Bucio Suarez and Daniel Ware, and all other "aggrieved" employees filed a wage and hour class action against Ruan Transportation.

Contentions

PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiffs were truck drivers for defendant who alleged the company failed to pay them for all hours worked. Plaintiffs complained that the company also did not provide them with meal and rest breaks. Plaintiffs complained they received a flat rate regardless of the time they spent doing actual work. As such, plaintiffs sought back wages. Plaintiffs asserted claims for violation of Labor Code Section 2699, unfair competition under Business and Professions Code Section 17200, and waiting time penalties under Labor Code Sections 201-203.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
Defendant denied any wrongdoing and maintained it had compensated plaintiffs fairly and lawfully and provided them with the opportunity to take meal and rest breaks in accordance with applicable law. Defendant claimed plaintiffs had conflated this and another previously filed actions.

Result

The parties reached a $3.5 million settlement, which includes an award of $5,000 to each named plaintiff, $980,000 in attorney fees, and $18,411.25 in costs. Final approval of the settlement was granted on Feb. 4, 2016.


#102101

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390