Santos H. Garcia, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, all current, former and future aggrieved employees, and the general public of California; Ramiro Orozco, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, all current, former and future aggrieved employees, and the general public of California; Michael Salmo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, all current, former and future aggrieved employees, and the general public of California; Wilver Antonio Vasquez Quintanilla and Edgar Veliz Baeza, each individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated and the general public of California v. Evans Delivery Company Inc., Allen Cepeda, and Does 1 to 100, inclusive
Published: Jan. 22, 2021 | Result Date: Dec. 23, 2020 | Filing Date: May 17, 2019 |Case number: 2:19-cv-04316-DSF-E Settlement – $2,800,000
Judge
Court
CD CA
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Michael A. Jenkins
(Law Office of Stephen Glick)
Defendant
Christopher J. Eckhart
(Scopelitis, Garvin, Light, Hanson & Feary LLP)
Christopher C. McNatt Jr.
(Scopelitis, Garvin, Light, Hanson & Feary LLP)
James T. Spolyar
(Scopelitis, Garvin, Light, Hanson & Feary LLP)
Howard J. Smith III
(Berman Berman Berman Schneider & Lowary LLP)
Facts
Santos Garcia was a truck driver for Evans Delivery Company. He was paid for his employment on a piece-rate basis, i.e. he was paid based on transporting a load from one point to another. Based on his dissatisfaction with his pay basis and other practices surrounding his compensation, Garcia initiated a class action lawsuit against Evans Delivery Company asserting various Labor Code and statutory claims.
Contentions
PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS: Plaintiffs contended that defendants committed various Labor Code and Private Attorneys General Act violations. In addition to failing to pay for expenditures made by plaintiffs as part of their employment duties, defendants did not provide plaintiffs with rest and meal periods as required by law. Plaintiffs' wage statements were also inaccurately calculated and not properly itemized by defendants. Defendants failed to provide plaintiffs with the full amount of their earned wages due to unnecessary deductions to their pay. Defendants also failed to provide timely wage payments to plaintiffs upon their termination. Plaintiffs contended that defendants' conduct constituted unlawful business practices and warranted damages from defendants to plaintiffs.
DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS: Defendants denied the contentions and asserted that plaintiffs and the class they sought to represent were properly classified as independent contractors and treated consistent with the contractual relationships between the parties.
Result
The court approved a $2,800,000 settlement between the parties.
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390