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

Jocelyn Trigueros v. Stanford Federal Credit Union, et al.

Published: Jul. 28, 2023 | Result Date: Mar. 21, 2023 | Filing Date: Jan. 8, 2021 |

Case number: 21CV375168 Settlement –  $1,125,000

Judge

Sunil R. Kulkarni

Court

Santa Clara County Superior Court


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Douglas Han
(Justice Law Corporation)

Shunt Tatavos-Gharajeh
(Justice Law Corporation)

Chancellor D. Nobles
(Justice Law Corporation)


Defendant

Shannon L. Bettis Nakabayashi
(Jackson Lewis PC)

Jamielee F. Martinez
(Jackson Lewis PC)


Facts

From April 2019 to February 2020, Jocelyn Trigueros worked for Stanford Federal Credit Union as an hourly paid, non-exempt employee. On January 8, 2021, Trigueros filed a complaint in Santa Clara Superior against Stanford Federal Credit Union. Trigueros sought to represent former, and at that time, current non-exempt employees of the credit union who worked from July 17, 2016 to November 23, 2022, while excluding those who signed separate, individual severance and release agreements that covered the claims she alleged. On March 7, 2023, the trial court granted Trigueros' dismissal of other defendants: Cardtronics USA and ATM National.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff contended asserted claims for violations pertaining to: failure to pay minimum and overtime wages; failure to provide compliant meal or rest periods or associated premiums; failure to timely pay wages on discharge; failure to provide accurate wage statements; and failure to reimburse business expenses. Along with these violations, plaintiff also brought a representative claim for Private Attorneys General Act penalties and also one for unlawful business practices.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: Defendant generally and specifically denied any liability or wrongdoing of any kind associated with plaintiff's claims and maintained that it consistently paid its employees properly and fairly.

Settlement Discussions

The parties engaged in mediation with retired judge, Hon. Carl West, on March 23, 2022. Though no settlement was agreed upon that day, the parties thereafter reached a settlement.

Result

The parties settled for a non-reversionary, gross settlement amount of $1.125 million.


#141178

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

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