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
Wage and Hour
Meal and Rest Period

Mayra Cuellar, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. S.K. Laboratories Inc., and Does 1 to 100, inclusive

Published: Oct. 8, 2016 | Result Date: Sep. 16, 2016 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: 30-2014-00717705-CU-OE-CXC Settlement –  $87,500

Court

Orange Superior


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Paul J. Denis
(Denis & Rasi PC)

Nicholas D. Poper
(Baker & Hostetler LLP)

Sam Kim

Kevin Mahoney
(Mahoney Law Group APC)

Sean M. Blakely
(Haines Law Group APC)


Defendant

Gregory P. Wong
(Barkhordarian Law Firm PLC)

Sandeep J. Shah
(Shah Law Group PC)

Samir I Sheth
(Shah Sheth LLP)


Facts

Plaintiff brought a putative wage and hour class action on behalf of current and former hourly non-exempt employees of S.K. Laboratories Inc., an owner and operator of a supplement manufacturing facility located in Anaheim.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiff contended that defendant committed a wide range of wage and hour violations, including by implementing an unlawful policy and practice of failing to pay employees overtime wages for those who worked more than eight hours per day or 40 hours per week, and by improperly rounding down employees' time so that they were underpaid.

Plaintiff asserted causes of action for failure to pay wages, failure to pay all wages due to illegal bonus policy, failure to pay all wages due to unlawful deductions, failure to provide meal periods or compensation in lieu thereof, failure to provide rest periods or compensation in lieu thereof, failure to pay wages of terminated or resigned employees, failure to comply with employee itemized wage statement provision, violations of the Unfair Competition Law, and violations of the Private Attorney's General Act.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
Defendant denied plaintiff's allegations and asserted various affirmative defenses.

Result

Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and the approximately 64-member class, settled with defendant for $87,500.

Other Information

FILING DATE: April 17, 2014.


#125054

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

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