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

Victor Rodriguez, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Estreberto Valdez, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Miguel Esparza, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated and Francisco Banda, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. M.J. Brothers, Inc., a California Corporation, Eduardo Martin, Daniel Martin, Fernando Martin, Ronald Martin

Published: Jun. 14, 2019 | Result Date: May 24, 2019 | Filing Date: Feb. 16, 2018 |

Case number: 1:18-cv-00252-SAB Settlement –  $525,000

Judge

Stanley A. Boone

Court

USDC Eastern District of California


Attorneys

Plaintiff

John E. Hill
(Law Office of John E. Hill)

Enrique Martinez
(Law Office of John E. Hill)


Defendant

Faith L. Driscoll
(Barsamian & Moody)

Patrick S. Moody
(Barsamian & Moody)

Ronald H. Barsamian
(Barsamian & Moody)


Facts

Victor Rodriguez, Estreberto Valdez, Miguel Esparza, and Francisco Banda filed a class action lawsuit against their former employer M.J. Brothers Inc., Eduardo Martin, Daniel Martin, Fernando Martin, and Ronald Martin, in relation to defendants' employment and compensation practices.

Contentions

PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS: Plaintiffs contended that defendants' shop workers were paid overtime only after having worked over 10 hours per day or 60 hours per week, and did not receive a second meal period after working over 10 hours per day. Plaintiffs also alleged operators worked over 12 hours per day and did not receive meal and rest periods until recently, and pruners worked over 8 hours per day without all meal and rest periods. Additionally, plaintiffs claimed truck drivers were paid at an overtime rate after having worked over 10 hours per day or 60 hours per week, and did not receive meal or rest periods until recently. Further, plaintiffs alleged truck drivers had to eat in their vehicles, were required to come to work on days they were not scheduled for, and would sometimes work under 4 hours and were not compensated at all for such time. Plaintiffs contended that weighers were only paid overtime after working over 10 hours per day or 60 hours per week, and did not receive meal or rest periods until recently. In addition, plaintiffs alleged they were required to come to work on days they were not scheduled or worked under 4 hours without compensation. Plaintiffs brought claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act, various California Labor Code sections, the California Business and Professions Code, and sought civil penalties under the California Private Attorneys General Act.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS: Defendants denied the allegations.

Result

The court granted preliminary approval of a $525,000 settlement agreement reached between the parties. Under the agreement, $131,250 of the settlement will pay attorney fees, $12,500 will pay costs, and $5,000 will be paid to each named plaintiff.


#132034

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

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