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

Antelma Chavez, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Lincare Inc., Lincare Holdings Inc., and Does 1 through 100

Published: Jul. 14, 2023 | Result Date: Feb. 17, 2023 | Filing Date: Dec. 5, 2019 |

Case number: 2:20-cv-02043 JWH-E Settlement –  $1,600,000

Judge

John W. Holcomb

Court

CD CA


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Paul K. Haines
(Haines Law Group APC)

Sean M. Blakely
(Haines Law Group APC)

Alexandra Rochelle McIntosh
(Haines Law Group APC)


Defendant

David L. Cheng
(Ford & Harrison LLP)

Jennifer S. McGeorge
(Ford & Harrison LLP)


Facts

On December 5, 2019, Antelma Chavez, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, brought a putative class action against Lincare Inc., and Lincare Holdings Inc., alleging various Labor Code violations. The class included all non-exempt, hourly workers who were employed by Lincare Inc. in California at any time from December 5, 2015, through August 11, 2022. On May 10, 2022, the parties participated in a private mediation session with mediator Steven Serratore, a well-respected, experienced mediator in the wage and hour class action field. The parties came to an agreement in principle on May 13, 2022.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff alleged that defendants failed to: pay all wages, including minimum wages and overtime; pay wages during employment and upon separation of employment; provide compliant meal and rest breaks; reimburse for all necessary business expenses; and provide accurate itemized wage statements for its California employees. Further, plaintiff contended that defendants engaged in unfair competition as a result of these violations.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS: Defendants denied all contentions.

Result

Defendants agreed to pay $1.6 million to settle the case.


#140993

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

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