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 Periods

Cindi Vazquez, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Blue Desert International Inc., dba Hydroquip and Does 1 through 50, inclusive

Published: Apr. 21, 2023 | Result Date: Aug. 26, 2022 | Filing Date: Jul. 9, 2021 |

Case number: CVR2103321 Settlement –  $340,000

Judge

Craig G. Riemer

Court

Riverside County Superior Court


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Scott E. Wheeler
(Law Office of Scott E. Wheeler)


Defendant

Nicole I. Golob
(Fisher & Phillips LLP)

Areen Babajanian
(Fisher & Phillips LLP)


Facts

On July 9, 2021, Cindi Vazquez, on behalf of herself and the class, brought a class action complaint against Blue Desert International, Inc., doing business as, Hydroquip, a California corporation, alleging various Labor Code violations. The class included all hourly employees of Desert International who worked for them in California from July 9, 2017, through preliminary approval.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff alleged that defendant failed to: pay one additional hour of compensation to non-exempt employees at their regular rate of pay for each workday that a meal or rest period was not provided, provide compliant meal and rest periods, pay non-exempt employees overtime wages, properly calculate overtime wages, provide accurate itemized wage statements, pay discharged or quitting employees all wages, maintain required records, and timely pay all wages for its California employees during the relevant time period. Further, plaintiff alleged that defendant engaged in unfair competition in violation of California Business and Professions Code as a result of these violations.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: Defendant denied all contentions.

Result

Defendant agreed to pay a non-reversionary $340,000 settlement.


#140594

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

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