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

Jose Franco, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. E-3 Systems, and Does 1 through 50, inclusive

Published: May 27, 2022 | Result Date: Jun. 11, 2021 | Filing Date: Mar. 20, 2019 |

Case number: 4:19-cv-01453-HSG Settlement –  $125,000

Judge

Haywood S. Gilliam Jr.

Court

USDC Northern District of California


Attorneys

Plaintiff

David H. Yeremian
(David Yeremian & Associates Inc.)

Roman Shkodnik
(David Yeremian & Associates Inc.)

Walter L. Haines
(United Employees Law Group PC)


Defendant

Kevin R. Elliott
(Shea & McIntyre APC)

John F. McIntyre Jr.
(Shea & McIntyre APC)


Facts

E-3 Systems provides installations of network and telecom infrastructures. Jose Franco worked as a communications technician, a non-exempt hourly position, for E-3 Systems. Plaintiff Franco filed two actions in state court, a putative class action and a representative PAGA action. Defendant removed the actions to federal court based on federal preemption under Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1974 ("LMRA") because plaintiff and the putative class were members of a union. Plaintiff sought to remove the actions back to state court. However, on November 8, 2019, the court denied plaintiff's motion to remand the cases and consolidated them into a single action in federal court.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff asserted claims for failure to pay minimum wages; failure to pay wages and overtime; meal period liability; rest-break liability; failure to reimburse necessary expenditures; violation of the Business & Professions Code; and other violations of the Labor Code.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: Defendant denied all contentions. Specifically, defendant asserted plaintiff's overtime claims were entirely preempted by the collective bargaining agreement and subject to dismissal pursuant to Curtis v. Irwin Industries, 913 F.3d 1146 (2019).

Settlement Discussions

The parties completed mediation with wage-and-hour mediator Mark C. Peters. After a full day of negotiations based on the documents and information exchanged, the parties agreed in principle to the terms governing the settlement of this action. The parties later completed their long form settlement agreement.

Result

The case settled for $125,000.


#138961

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

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