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

Taylre Chowning, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated; Thomas Armaly, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Freedom Mortgage Corporation; Ryan Perussi, and Does 1 through 50

Published: May 26, 2023 | Result Date: Oct. 17, 2022 | Filing Date: Feb. 10, 2022 |

Case number: 37-2022-00005613-CU-OE-CTL Settlement –  $650,000

Judge

Matthew C. Braner

Court

San Diego County Superior Court


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Nicholas J. Ferraro
(Ferraro Vega Employment Lawyers, Inc.)

Lauren N. Vega
(Ferraro Vega Employment Lawyers, Inc.)


Defendant

Caroline P. Donelan
(Blank Rome LLP)


Facts

On February 10, 2022, Taylre Chowning and Thomas Armaly brought a class action against Freedom Mortgage Corporation, alleging wage and hour violations. The class included all individuals currently and formerly employed by Freedom Mortgage Corporation in California as hourly, non-exempt employees from February 10, 2018, to October 9, 2022. On July 11, 2022, the parties participated in an all-day mediation session presided over by Lou Marlin.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff alleged that defendants failed to: pay all minimum wages, pay all overtime wages, provide complaint meal periods and rest breaks, provide paid sick leave, furnish accurate itemized wage statements, timely pay all wages owed, and reimburse business expenses for its California employees during the relevant time period. Further, plaintiff contended that defendant violated unfair competition law as a result of these violations. Moreover, plaintiff sought civil penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: Defendant denied all contentions.

Result

Defendants agreed to pay $650,000 to settle all claims.


#140795

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

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