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

Ian D'Sa, Maria Diaz, Jorge Valdivia, and Francisco Romero, on behalf of themselves, all others similarly situated v. Amber India Corporation, Amber India Commercial Inc., Amber India Enterprise Inc., Vijay Bist, Vijay Kumar, and Does 1 - 25

Published: Feb. 23, 2018 | Result Date: Jan. 25, 2018 |

Case number: CGC-15-544578 Settlement –  $570,000

Judge

Curtis E.A. Karnow

Court

San Francisco County Superior Court


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Richard A. Hoyer
(Hoyer & Hicks)

Ryan L. Hicks
(Hoyer & Hicks)


Defendant

Jeffrey V. Ta
(Lagasse Branch Bell Kinkead)

Colin W. Larson
(Littler Mendelson PC)


Facts

Plaintiffs, employees of seven different Amber India restaurant locations, filed a class action complaint against their employer.

Contentions

PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS: Plaintiffs claimed they did not have time to take meal breaks or rest breaks, and that defendants did not implement break policies or allowed meal or rest breaks. Plaintiffs contended that they were not paid for missed breaks. One of the plaintiffs alleged that a manager at a defendant restaurant once expressly stated employees could not take breaks due to the business of the restaurant. The plaintiffs also contended that the defendant manipulated time records and omitted information from wage statements to avoid paying overtime.

Plaintiffs asserted causes of action for California wage law violations, including the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, during a specific time frame ending in 2015.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS: Defendants denied the claims and proffered several affirmative defenses. Defendants contended that its policies required proper rest and meal breaks, and that its wage statements and other records were accurate and legally compliant.

Damages

Unpaid wages and overtime, as well as civil penalties, were requested.

Result

The parties stipulated to a settlement agreement in the gross amount of $570,000. The maximum amount to participating class members after the other payments would total $327,500 of the gross settlement amount.


#128929

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

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