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

Edgar Orozco, an individual, for himself and those similarly situated v. Ardent Companies Inc., and Does 1 through 100, inclusive

Published: Apr. 10, 2020 | Result Date: Feb. 7, 2020 | Filing Date: Apr. 3, 2018 |

Case number: 2:18-cv-02763-GW-SSx Settlement –  $2,325,000

Judge

George H. Wu

Court

CD CA


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Andrew C. Ellison
(Strauss & Strauss APC)

Aris E. Karakalos
(Karakalos Law APC)

Michael Strauss


Defendant

Joshua D. Kienitz
(Littler Mendelson PC)

Perry K. Miska Jr.
(Littler Mendelson PC)


Facts

Edgar Orzoco filed a class action suit against Exxon subcontractor, Ardent Companies Inc., on behalf of Ardent's electricians. The class was comprised of electricians employed by Ardent on an hourly basis that provided services on oil drilling platforms off the coast of California for 12-hour multi-day shifts, or hitches.

Contentions

PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS: Plaintiffs contended that it was mandatory for them to remain on call for 12 hours following the completion of their 12-hour shift. Plaintiffs also contended that they were not compensated for the time spent on land in California or commuting from shore to platform and back. Plaintiffs also contended that defendant did not pay them the overtime pay that they earned by staying on call for 12 hours after their ship and failed to provide state and federally mandated meal and rest breaks. Plaintiffs further contended that defendant did not adhere to minimum wage and overtime rules when compensating plaintiffs.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: Defendant denied the contentions.

Result

The parties entered a $2.3 million settlement.

Other Information

Each proposed class member may recover approximately $14,828 from the settlement.


#134386

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

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