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

Alivia Stricklin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. First Alarm Security & Patrol, Inc., and Does 1 through 50, inclusive

Published: Nov. 29, 2019 | Result Date: Sep. 27, 2019 | Filing Date: Feb. 21, 2018 |

Case number: 18-CV-323753 Settlement –  $7,250,000

Judge

Brian C. Walsh

Court

Santa Clara County Superior Court


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Graham S.P. Hollis
(GrahamHollis APC)

Vilmarie Cordero
(GrahamHollis APC)

David X. Lin
(Grahamhollis APC)

Larry W. Lee
(Diversity Law Group PC)

William L. Marder
(Polaris Law Group LLP)

Dennis S. Hyun
(Hyun Legal APC)

Edward W. Choi
(Law Offices of Choi & Associates PC)

Michael R. Crosner
(Crosner Legal PC)

Zachary M. Crosner
(Crosner Legal PC)


Defendant

Barry A. Bradley
(Bradley & Gmelich LLP)


Facts

Alivia Stricklin, Tonja Bryant, Arlington Reed, Yesenia Suarez, and Gilbert Peter, security guards, filed wage and hour class action lawsuits against their current or former employer, First Alarm Security & Patrol, Inc.

Contentions

PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS: Plaintiffs alleged that defendant required employees to remain on duty during their meal and rest breaks. Moreover, plaintiffs contended that they were required to falsify records by handwriting 30-minute meal periods on time records, even though they were required to remain on duty. Further, plaintiffs alleged that they worked longer than 8 hours a day because they were required to wait for other employees to arrive to relieve them of their duties, causing them to work 15-30 minutes without receiving compensation. Plaintiffs also alleged that defendant failed to provide employees with sick leave or vacation leave. Plaintiffs alleged that they were required to use their personal cell phones for work calls but were not reimbursed for those expenses. Plaintiffs asserted claims for penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act, and various Labor Code violations.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: Defendant denied the contentions.

Result

The plaintiffs and defendant agreed to settle for $7,250,000.

Other Information

Consolidated with: 18CV324727; 18CV32473 1; 18CV330420; and 18CV332369 (for Settlement Purposes)


#133514

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

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