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

Edwin Ralda and Christina Seehof, individually and on behalf of other class members v. Smart & Final Stores LLC, and Does 1 through 50, inclusive

Published: Dec. 30, 2022 | Result Date: Apr. 26, 2022 | Filing Date: Dec. 12, 2018 |

Case number: 18STCV08098 Settlement –  $2,000,000

Judge

Carolyn B. Kuhl

Court

Los Angeles County Superior Court


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Matthew R. Bainer
(The Bainer Law Firm)

Graham S.P. Hollis
(GrahamHollis APC)

David X. Lin
(Grahamhollis APC)


Defendant

Paul S. Cowie
(Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP)

Brooke S. Purcell
(Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP)

Amanda E. Beckwith
(Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP)


Facts

Both Edwin Ralda and Christina Seehof were former employees of Smart & Final Stores, Inc. in California. On December 12, 2018, Ralda, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated and aggrieved Smart & Final employees in California, against Smart & Final Stores alleging various Labor Code violations. The class included all persons employed by Smart & Final during the period between December 14, 2014, and October 12, 2021 in a non-exempt store position in California who did not sign an arbitration agreement. On August 13, 2019, Seehof filed a class action against Smart & Final Stores, Inc. in the Los Angeles County Superior Court, alleging similar Labor Code violations. On March 31, 2021, Ralda and Seehof and Smart & Final attended a full day mediation with mediator Mark Rudy, but were not able to reach a settlement on that date.

Contentions

PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS: Plaintiffs alleged that defendant failed to: provide meal periods; provide rest periods; pay minimum and regular wages; indemnify for all necessary work expenses, provide accurate itemized wage statements; pay all overtime wages; and timely pay wages due upon separation of employment to its non-exempt California employees. Plaintiffs contended that as a result of defendant's violations, defendant engaged in unlawful business practices in violation of the California Business & Professions Code.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: Defendant denied all contentions.

Result

Defendant agreed to pay a $2,000,000 settlement.


#139991

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

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