Vanessa Bustos, and all others similarly situated v. Coffee Meets Bagel Inc., Arum Kang, Dawoon Kang, and Does 1-60 inclusive
Published: Mar. 17, 2023 | Result Date: Jul. 14, 2022 | Filing Date: May 6, 2019 |Case number: CGC-19-575734 Settlement – $230,000
Judge
Court
San Francisco County Superior Court
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Daniel Berko
(Law Office of Daniel Berko)
Carlos Jato
(Law Office of Carlos Jato)
Defendant
Robert S. Silver
(Kaufman, Dolowich & Voluck LLP)
Marcus M. Dong
(Kaufman, Dolowich & Voluck LLP)
Facts
Arum Kang and Dawoon Kang are officers and directors of Coffee Meets Bagel, Inc., a corporation located at 391 Grove Street, San Francisco, California, that conducts an online dating service for its customers. Vanessa Bustos was an employee at Coffee Meets Bagel from January 2017 to January 24, 2019. Vanessa Bustos and Rezelle Bustos, on their behalf and on behalf of other current and former allegedly misclassified individuals, brought a class action complaint against Coffee Meets Bagel, Inc., Arum Kang, and Dawoon Kang, alleging various Labor Code violations. The class included all persons who have worked for Coffee Meets Bagel, Inc. and who were classified as an independent contractor or salaried or exempt employees at any time from May 6, 2015, to March 30, 2022. On April 19, 2021, the parties participated in mediation with Michael Loeb, Esquire, an experienced and well-respected class action mediator.
Contentions
PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS: Plaintiffs alleged that defendants failed to: pay overtime wages for all hours worked, provide legally compliant meal and rest breaks, provide a paystub with a detachable part of the check showing gross wages earned and total hours worked at the time of payment, timely pay all wages owed during each pay period and upon termination, and provide accurate, itemized wage statements for its California employees during the relevant time period. Moreover, plaintiffs contended that the individual defendants exercised control over wages, hours, and working conditions of the class members as a result of their positions in the company. Further, plaintiffs maintained that defendants willfully misclassified class members as independent contractors or salaried employees. Finally, plaintiffs argued that defendants' business practices were unlawful and unfair in violation of the Unfair Competition Law and California Business & Professions Code.
DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS: Defendants denied all contentions.
Result
The case settled for $230,000.
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390