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

Vikki Curl and Anthony J. Gratton, individually and as "Aggrieved Employees" on behalf of other "Aggrieved Employees" under the Labor Code Private Attorney General Act of 2004 v. Reel Security Corp.; Reel Security California Inc.; Mario Ramirez; Bradley Bush; and Does 1 through 50, inclusive

Published: May 6, 2022 | Result Date: Apr. 29, 2021 | Filing Date: Dec. 21, 2018 |

Case number: 18STCV09302 Settlement –  $315,000

Judge

John P. Doyle

Court

Los Angeles County Superior Court


Attorneys

Plaintiff

David G. Spivak
(The Spivak Law Firm)

Maralle Messrelian
(The Spivak Law Firm)


Defendant

Barry A. Bradley
(Bradley & Gmelich LLP)

Jaimee K. Wellerstein
(Bradley & Gmelich LLP)


Facts

Reel Security Corporation provides security for the television and film industries. On June 27, 2018 plaintiff Vikki Curl filed a class action complaint in the Los Angeles Superior Court. About two months later, in August 2018, she sought dismissal without prejudice of defendants Reel Security Corp., Mario Ramirez and Bradley Bush. In December 2018, pursuant to a stipulation between the parties, plaintiff Curl filed a First Ameded Complaint as an "aggrieved employee" under PAGA, dismissing all class allegations, and as against only Reel Security California Inc. and the parties thereafter agreed to participate in private mediation.

Contentions

PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS: Plaintiffs contended that Reel Security failed to: provide rest breaks or meal periods pursuant to California Labor Code Sections 226.7, 512 and 558 and applicable IWC Wage Orders; pay minimum wages pursuant to California Labor Code Sections 1194 and 1197.1 and applicable IWC Wage Orders; pay overtime wages pursuant to California Labor Code Sections 510, 558 and 1194 and applicable IWC Wage Orders; reimburse for business-related expenses; pay all overtime; timely pay all wages due upon employment separation; provide accurate itemized wage statements; and maintain accurate records. These actions were in violation of other California laws and provisions including California Business and Professions Code Section 17200 et seq.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS: Reel defendants denied any liability and wrongdoing of any kind associated with any of the claims alleged and further denied that the actions were appropriate for class action or PAGA representative action treatment for any purpose other than the settlement. They contended that they complied with all California Labor Code sections, the IWC Wage Orders and the California Business and Professions Code sections at all times.

Settlement Discussions

The parties participated in a full-day mediation before Michael A. Latin. At the mediation's conclusion, the parties resolved the case, subject to preparing and filing a Third Amended Complaint to amend the case by adding plaintiff Anthony Grattan as the new class representative and also adding back the previously dismissed Reel defendants and adding back class allegations.

Result

The parties agreed to settle the case for $315,000 which Reel defendants agreed to pay within 36 months.


#138851

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

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