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

Mario Cortez, Maria Cisneros, Antonio Toscano, Francisco Javier Gonzalez, Jesus Rodriguez, Cecilia Garcia, Jose Luis Raygoza, and Jose Guzman, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Vieira Custom Chopping Inc., V&S Commodity Inc., Christina Vieira, and Matthew Sepeda

Published: Mar. 6, 2020 | Result Date: Sep. 20, 2019 | Filing Date: Dec. 7, 2017 |

Case number: 1:17-cv-01647-DAD-SKO Settlement –  $450,000

Judge

Dale A. Drozd

Court

USDC Eastern District of California


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Enrique Martinez
(Law Office of John E. Hill)


Defendant

Anthony P. Raimondo
(Raimondo & Associates)

Steven R. Wainess
(Raimondo & Associates)

Gerardo Hernandez
( Littler Mendelson PC)


Facts

Mario Cortez, Maria Cisneros, Antonio Toscano, Francisco Javier Gonzalez, Cecilia Garcia, Jose Luis Raygoza, and Jose Guzman filed a class action lawsuit against Vieira Custom Chopping Inc., V&S Commodity Inc., Christina Vieira, and Matthew Sepeda in relation to defendants' employment and compensation practices.

Contentions

PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS: Plaintiffs alleged that they were employed by defendants in different positions for varying lengths of time, and were often required to work over 12 hours per day for at least 6 days per week during the corn and wheat season. Plaintiffs contended that the duties of shop workers, truck drivers, and weighers did not fall under the Fair Labor Standards Act's agricultural exemption, so defendants had misclassified them as agricultural employees. As such, plaintiffs argued they were provided insufficient or late meal periods, and inadequate rest periods. Plaintiffs also claimed defendants did not properly compensate them for overtime hours worked and did not provide proper accurate itemized wage statements. Plaintiffs asserted causes of action under the FLSA, California Labor Code, California Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders, and unfair competition law.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS: Defendants denied the allegations and alleged that plaintiffs merely chose not to take the legally sufficient meal and rest periods that were provided to them.

Result

The court granted preliminary approval of a settlement reached between the parties under which defendants agreed to pay a maximum of $450,000 in installments. Of that sum, defendants agreed to pay up to $18,500 to the claims administrator, $10,000 as a PAGA settlement, $7,500 to each named plaintiff as an incentive payment, $112,500 to class counsel in attorney fees, and up to $8,900 in litigation costs.


#133407

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

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