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
Late Payment of Wages

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

Andrew Y. S. Cheng

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.


#140399

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

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