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.

Employment Law
Compensations, Benefits
Wage and Hour

Humberto Cabello v. BLH Construction Co.

Published: Jul. 10, 2010 | Result Date: Feb. 23, 2010 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: 56-2009-00340011-CU-OE-VTA Verdict –  Defense

Court

Ventura Superior


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Daniel J. Palay
(Palay Hefelfinger APC)

Alejandro P. Gutierrez
(Hathaway, Perrett, Webster, Powers, Chrisman & Gutierrez APC)


Defendant

Sabrina D. Sanders

Gregory J. Ramirez
(Law Office of Gregory J. Ramirez)


Experts

Plaintiff

Kenneth Creal CPA
(technical)

Facts

Plaintiff Humberto Cabello was employed with BLH Construction Co. from 2005 through 2007, initially as a member of a grading crew and then as a laborer on the concrete crew. Plaintiff filed suit for wages owed and related penalties.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiff claimed that BLH failed to pay him his wages on both non-prevailing wage and prevailing wage jobs. Plaintiff also asserted BLH failed to compensate him for time spent traveling to and from job sites, failed to compensate him for overtime, and failed to provide him meal breaks.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
BLH Construction Co. contended that at the time plaintiff commenced employment with BLH, he entered into an employment agreement and received all compensation under the terms of the agreement.

BLH further contended that during the duration of the agreement, plaintiff was paid significantly more than had the agreement not been existence. As a result, BLH asserted that plaintiff, as well as all employees at the time, were paid well above minimum wage and/or the prevailing wage.

Additionally, BLH did not require its employees to travel in a company owned vehicle to and from job sites, and as such did not owe compensation for such travel. BLH also contended that plaintiff lied about his age to gain employment with BLH, presenting forged government documents that falsely indicated he was the age of majority.

Result

After five days of trial, the jury returned a special verdict in favor of BLH Construction.

Other Information

Plaintiff's motion for a new trial was denied. Defendant's motion for $125,000 in fees was denied.

Deliberation

three hours

Poll

10-2 (defense in favor of BLH Construction)

Length

five days


#117487

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

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